ORDER : R. Kantha Rao, J. The petitioners, according to them, are working as Ad hoc Lecturers in various departments of the 2nd respondent-Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (JNTU), Hyderabad. They filed the writ petition to declare the proceedings dated 03-7-2015 issued by the 2nd respondent-University as illegal, arbitrary and hit by Articles 14, 16(1) and 21 of the Constitution of India, to direct the respondents to absorb them as Assistant Professors, to declare that continuing them on ad hoc basis for years together as unconstitutional and violative of their Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and to direct the 2nd respondent-University to pay salaries to them on par with the regularly appointed Assistant Professors. 2. In the Affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioners submitted as follows: (a) The petitioners are presently working as Ad hoc Lecturers in the 2nd respondent-University in various departments such as Computer Science and Engineering, Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Electronics and Communication Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Chemistry and Mathematics Departments and they have been working in the respective departments ranging from 1 to 13 years in the 2nd respondent-University and every year, with the commencement of academic year, the 2nd respondent-University conducts written test and interviews and in pursuance thereof, ad hoc appointments will be given on tenure basis. Last year, the 2nd respondent-University issued Advertisement dated 09-6-2014 calling upon applications for appointment of Lecturers (Ad hoc) in the prescribed format on various subjects to be appointed on consolidated pay for a period of one academic year as was issued during the years prior to 2014. As usual, the petitioners, as was done every year, appeared for the written examination and after evaluating the papers of their written test, a short list was notified for the purpose of conducting interviews. Accordingly, interviews were conducted for various branches from 25-6-2014. On completing the interview process, the 2nd respondent-University communicated the appointment in favour of the respective petitioners and on receiving the communication, all the petitioners joined the respective departments and they have been discharging the functions as ad hoc lecturers. (b) The petitioners are being paid consolidated pay depending upon the qualifications they possess i.e. Rs.18,000/- for B.Tech/MCA, Rs.22,000/- for M.Tech. and Rs.25,000/- for Ph.D. They submit that every year, such process of appointment has been taking place and appointments in favour of the petitioners are being issued. (b) The petitioners are being paid consolidated pay depending upon the qualifications they possess i.e. Rs.18,000/- for B.Tech/MCA, Rs.22,000/- for M.Tech. and Rs.25,000/- for Ph.D. They submit that every year, such process of appointment has been taking place and appointments in favour of the petitioners are being issued. According to them, the said process was adopted by the 2nd respondent-University only to delay regular appointment and to pay consolidated pay though they are discharging the functions similar to Assistant Professors working on regular basis. Therefore, they submit that the exercise is wholly arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16(1) and 21 of the Constitution of India. (c) The petitioners have been constantly requesting the 2nd respondent-University to regularise their services as they are fully qualified and having requisite qualifications and also requested to pay salary on par with the regular Assistant Professors as they have been discharging the functions on par with them. But, the 2nd respondent-University did not take any steps in spite of availability of vacancies in various departments. (d) It is submitted that after the end of the academic year 2014-15, they expected that the 2nd respondent-University will issue an Advertisement requiring the petitioners to take written test and interview for their reappointment as ad hoc lecturers. But, strangely the 2nd respondent-University issued the impugned proceedings dated 03-7-2015, which apparently for the purpose of eliminating many of the lecturers (ad hoc) under the guise of guidelines prescribed in the Notification dated 03-7-2015. A fair look of these guidelines itself demonstrates that they are highly arbitrary, whimsical, discriminatory and unbecoming to a statutory institute like the 2nd respondent-University and violative of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. (e) Nextly, it is submitted that the Notification dated 03-7-2015 prescribes certain guidelines for renewal of academic Assistants/Ad hoc Lecturers. In the Notification, 100 points have been prescribed and the petitioners, who are working as ad hoc lecturers, are expected to secure 50 points for renewal of their services for the academic year 2015-16. (e) Nextly, it is submitted that the Notification dated 03-7-2015 prescribes certain guidelines for renewal of academic Assistants/Ad hoc Lecturers. In the Notification, 100 points have been prescribed and the petitioners, who are working as ad hoc lecturers, are expected to secure 50 points for renewal of their services for the academic year 2015-16. It is submitted that out of 100 points, only to the extent of 40 points, a transparent procedure has been adopted i.e. the past experience/service of the candidate in the constituent units/colleges of JNTUH only will be considered as per years of service with 4 points for every year of service up to a maximum of 20 points, the qualifications are evaluated for maximum of 20 points i.e. BE/B.Tech/ M.Com/M.Sc/M.A.(English) 5 points, above plus M.E/M.Tech/M.Phil/MBA 10 points, Ph.D 20 points and 40 points will be awarded by a Committee consisting of Principal, Vice-Principal and Head of the respective department based on the performance of the individual on the following aspects. (i) No. of subjects taught and No. of classes taken 0/1/2 (ii) Willingness to accept conditional responsibility 0/1/2 (iii) Assistant to administration 0/1/2 (iv) Punctuality and regularity 0/1/2 (v) Speed of work efficiency in the work 0/1/2 (vi) Attitude with superiors 0/1/2 (vii) Attitude with colleagues 0/1/2 (viii) Attitude with students 0/1/2 (ix) Teaching ability 0/1/2 (x) Class control/Management 0/1/2 (xi) Subject knowledge 0/1/2 (xii) Evaluation of exams 0/1/2 (xiii) Invigilation/other duties 0/1/2 (xiv) Participation in academic issues 0/1/2 (xv) Contribution to academic development 0/1/2 (xvi) Syllabus completion 0/1/2 The remaining 20 points are meant for performance in a demo of lecture in the presence of the Selection Committee which is confidential in nature to be evaluated by the external expert and panel members. It is the version of the petitioners that in the aforementioned method, enormous element of discretion was placed in the hands of the Committee consisting of Principal, Vice-Principal and Head of the Department and therefore, the same has to be declared null and void and unconstitutional. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent-University is a statutory body under the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and its action should be always in accordance with the constitutional mandate and statutory environment. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent-University is a statutory body under the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and its action should be always in accordance with the constitutional mandate and statutory environment. Out of 100 points, only 40 points to some extent are said to be transparent and the remaining 60 points are confidential in nature and constitute majority of the marks where the petitioners are expected to achieve 50 points. According to the petitioners, no selection process is permissible in such a manner concentrating majority of the points in the name of confidential reports. It is settled principle of law that not more than 15 to 20 points can be placed in the hands of the individual members concerned, who are conducting interviews or selections and majority of the points, such as at least 80 points should be awarded in a transparent manner. It is stated that for ad hoc lecturers possessing service ranging from 1 to 13 years conducting examinations every year without keeping their experience in mind is running contrary to fair play and subjecting them to examination and interview process is unwise and untenable. Now, the 2nd respondent-University invented a new method through the impugned proceedings dated 03-7-2015 which is unknown to law and highly arbitrary and whimsical. It is done with an intention to eliminate the persons in whom the University is not interested or to send fear psychosis among the intending candidates so that they always act at the whims and fancies of the 2nd respondent-University or its officials. Therefore, according to the petitioners, they are entitled to continue as ad hoc lecturers without any break and are also entitled for payment of salary on par with the regular Assistant Professors. (f) Nextly, it is submitted that the 2nd respondent-University is neither issuing any appointment orders nor terminating orders to the petitioners but giving break to their service on completion of academic year. Therefore, the petitioners and similarly placed ad hoc lecturers represented to the State Government for their regularisation and in response to their representation, the 1st respondent asked the 2nd respondent-University to furnish the details of the respective candidates, who are working in the 2nd respondent-University as ad hoc lecturers by letter dated 09-4-2015. Therefore, the petitioners and similarly placed ad hoc lecturers represented to the State Government for their regularisation and in response to their representation, the 1st respondent asked the 2nd respondent-University to furnish the details of the respective candidates, who are working in the 2nd respondent-University as ad hoc lecturers by letter dated 09-4-2015. In reply, the 2nd respondent-University through letter dated 29-4-2015 requested the Principals of constituent colleges/Directors of various units of JNTUH to send the details of the ad hoc lecturers working on contract basis in their colleges/units in the prescribed pro forma along with their curriculum vitae. The petitioners submit that from the above correspondence, it is clear that the Government is considering to regularise the services of the petitioners and others and at this stage, the 2nd respondent-University issued the impugned proceedings dated 03-7-2015 which works adverse to the interest of the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners are constrained to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition praying for the above mentioned reliefs. 3. Initially, this Court passed an interim order on 15-7-2015 to the effect that the 2nd respondent-University can receive the applications and however, there shall be stay in regard to the evaluation of the candidates for a period of two weeks and the same was extended. On 16-9-2015, this Court heard both sides and reserved the orders and the interim order granted by this Court was extended till passing of the orders in the writ petition. 4. The 2nd respondent-University filed vacate stay petition along with the counter affidavit contending as follows: (a) The petitioners, who are working as ad hoc lecturers in the 2nd respondent-University do not have any vested right to be continued as their appointments were purely temporary and are governed by the terms and conditions stipulated in the contract entered by them with the University. The petitioners were appointed purely on temporary basis for a period of 11 months and as per the terms and conditions of the contract, they are automatically terminated on expiry of the said contract period. It is well settled law that persons appointed to ad hoc or temporary posts cannot claim as a matter of right their continuation in post beyond the contract period and their services will be subject to the terms and conditions of the contract. It is well settled law that persons appointed to ad hoc or temporary posts cannot claim as a matter of right their continuation in post beyond the contract period and their services will be subject to the terms and conditions of the contract. The petitioners have ceased to exist on the rolls of the University when the contract period came to an end on 31-5-2015 and some of the petitioners who are taking classes for the first year courses were terminated on 04-7-2015 and therefore, the question of petitioners continuing in the said posts does not arise. (b) The 2nd respondent-University issued the impugned proceedings basing on the recommendations of the Committee constituted for the purpose of improving the standards and quality of education in the university. The Committee constituted for the said purpose has considered various Government Orders, Circulars issued by the State Government and the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission (UGC) in respect of the renewal of ad hoc lecturers and recommended the changes to be made to the procedure for appointment of lecturers and the University has suitably adopted the recommendations and modified the selection procedure. (c) Nextly, it is submitted that none of the petitioners were working in the University or its constituent colleges as on the date of filing of the writ petition and they were automatically terminated from the service of the University on 31-5-2015 and some of the petitioners who were taking classes for the first year courses were terminated on 04-7-2015 when their contract period came to an end. Most of the petitioners have been working for only 2 or 3 years and not 13 years as contended by them. The petitioners being contract lecturers have no right to seek extension of their services beyond the contract period. The petitioners are well aware of the fact that their appointment is purely temporary for a period of one academic year as mentioned in the contract and it will come to an end automatically at the end of the contract period. The petitioners have to necessarily go through the procedure notified by the University and if they are selected, they will have to enter into a fresh contract for that academic year. The petitioners have to necessarily go through the procedure notified by the University and if they are selected, they will have to enter into a fresh contract for that academic year. The petitioners who entered into contract having full knowledge of the terms and conditions of their appointment and having entered into contract with the University, cannot now complain that the terms and conditions mentioned in the contract are either onerous or illegal. (d) It is further submitted that the University appoints the ad hoc lecturers basing on the academic needs of the University and the contention of the petitioners that only to delay the process of regular appointment of lecturers, the University is resorting to such kind of temporary appointments is not correct and far from truth. As a matter of fact, the University cannot on its own appoint the lecturers to regular posts as it has to obtain necessary permission from the State Government and approval of the roaster from the concerned departments of the State Government, issued Notification for filling up 186 vacant posts through regular selection process and interviews were also conducted, but the same could not be completed due to pendency of cases in this Court. It is further submitted that as on date, there are no schemes or Government Orders issued by the State Government for regularisation of ad hoc lecturers and therefore, the University cannot on its own regularise the services of the ad hoc lecturers and they have to go through the regular process and procedure notified for appointment of regular lecturers. As per the UGC guidelines, the University had to formulate the new guidelines for renewal of the ad hoc lecturers without written test and interview which was followed earlier. As a matter of fact, some of the ad hoc lecturers themselves have requested the University to dispense with the written test and interview and formulate a new scheme. The present guidelines which are issued are only to improve the standard of education and excellence in teaching and they have been issued only to evaluate the performance of the ad hoc lecturers, but they are not arbitrary, illegal or unreasonable. The guidelines have been issued after the University constituted a Committee and the Committee made its recommendations and there is no violation of any procedure or guidelines issued by the University. The guidelines have been issued after the University constituted a Committee and the Committee made its recommendations and there is no violation of any procedure or guidelines issued by the University. The impugned guidelines will only help in evaluating the performance of the lecturers and is objective and more transparent. (e) It is further submitted that the University is strictly following the guidelines issued by the UGC which is the apex body for prescribing the standards as well as procedures for excellence in education. The procedure adopted by the University is more transparent and comprehensive than the earlier system of selection and the petitioners cannot contend that the procedure adopted by the University under the impugned Notification is not transparent. The performance evaluation of the candidates is done through a duly constituted Committee and the procedure adopted is not only fully objective but also more transparent than the previous method of selection. The evaluation of the candidates will be done by a Committee consisting of 3 experts independently for 20 points each and the points awarded by the 3 experts will be taken into account without giving any scope for doubt or favouritism. The Selection Committee consists of one external subject expert, Chairman of Board of Studies and the Principal and each of them will independently evaluate the candidates and award points and the average points of the said 3 persons will be taken into consideration and therefore, the procedure adopted by the University cannot be said to be arbitrary and illegal. It is submitted that the petitioners cannot force the University to adopt a particular method of selection to suit their convenience and they have failed to substantiate as to how the procedure adopted by the University is bad or against law. The petitioners are well aware of the fact that they were appointed for a particular academic year purely on ad hoc basis as per the terms and conditions of the contract which they have entered into with the University, they have no vested right to continue in the service beyond the stipulated period and all the petitioners were automatically terminated on 31-5-2015 and some of the petitioners who were taking classes of first year were terminated on 04-7-2015, the respective dates on which the contract period came to an end. The fact that the petitioners pending representation made by them to the Government for regularisation of their services and the remarks sought by the Government and in response to which, the Government called for remarks from the 2nd respondent-University does not imply that the Government is contemplating to regularise the services of the petitioners. (f) Thus, according to the respondents, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 5. Sri A. Satya Prasad, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri Prakash Buddarapu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as the petitioners have been working as ad hoc lecturers since a long time in the colleges/departments of the University with a break in every academic year, the University is under an obligation to regularise their services and more particularly, in view of the fact that the issue of regularisation of the services of the petitioners is pending with the State Government which called for the details of the petitioners and other similarly situated employees from the University, the impugned Notification dated 03-7-2015 prescribing the method and guidelines for reappointing the petitioners and others as ad hoc lecturers is illegal and unconstitutional. The learned Senior Counsel, therefore, urges the Court to set aside the said Notification. 6. On the other hand, Sri A. Abhishek Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for JNTU-2nd respondent, would submit that only for the purpose of improving the standards in teaching and in compliance with the directions issued by the UGC, which is the apex body, the Notification was issued and the petitioners have no vested right to continue in their respective posts after their contract period came to an end and they also cannot insist upon the University to follow a particular method for reappointing them as ad hoc lecturers. 7. In support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners relied on the following judgments: (a) Dr. Meera Massey v. Dr. S.R. Mehrotra, (1998) 3 SCC 88 . 7. In support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners relied on the following judgments: (a) Dr. Meera Massey v. Dr. S.R. Mehrotra, (1998) 3 SCC 88 . In the said case, the Supreme Court deprecated ad hocism in all services, particularly in cases of appointment of Professors, Readers and Teachers in the Universities but specifically held that the regularisation of the services of the University teachers must be only in accordance with the procedure laid down under the University laws and took the view that the regularisation of the ad hoc appointments made de hors the rules is not proper. (b) Mohd. Abdul Kadir v. Director General Of Police, (2009) 6 SCC 611 . In this case also, the Supreme Court deprecated the practise of giving artificial breaks from time to time and then re-appointing the same staff and opined that such practise is contrary to the service jurisprudence. However, the Supreme Court with regard to the regularisation held as follows: "If temporary or ad hoc engagement or appointment is in connection with a particular project or a specific scheme, the ad hoc or temporary service of persons employed under the project or scheme would come an end, on completion/closure/cessation of the project or scheme. The fact that the Scheme had been in operation for some decades or that the employee concerned has continued on ad hoc basis for one or two decades would not entitle the employee to seek permanency or regularisation. Even if any posts are sanctioned with reference to the Scheme, such sanction is of ad hoc or temporary posts coterminous with the Scheme and not of permanent posts. On completion of project or discontinuance of the Scheme, those who were engaged with reference to, or in connection with such project or scheme cannot claim any right to continue in service, nor seek regularisation in some other project or service." 8. On completion of project or discontinuance of the Scheme, those who were engaged with reference to, or in connection with such project or scheme cannot claim any right to continue in service, nor seek regularisation in some other project or service." 8. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent-University relied on Secy., State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 wherein the Supreme Court held as follows: Merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right. 9. From the judgments relied on by the learned counsel on either side, what all can be understood is that though the Supreme Court deprecated the practise of ad hocism, more particularly in the appointments of teaching staff in the Universities, it has specifically ruled that if an employee has not been appointed by following the due procedure relating to the employment of a regular employee, continuing in the post for long years does not vest him with any right to claim regularisation or to continue him beyond the contract period or for re-engagement. 10. In the case on hand, admittedly, the petitioners are ad hoc lecturers appointed for 11 months each time. After completing 11 months, they are being terminated and are being re-appointed by again subjecting them for the written test and interview. Therefore, by virtue of service in the University with breaks even for a longer period does not vest them with any right to claim regularisation or re-engagement. 11. The other question requires determination in the present writ petition is whether the Notification issued by the University dated 09-6-2014 prescribing the procedure for appointing ad hoc lecturers which has been mentioned in detail herein above is unconstitutional and in violation of the Fundamental Rights of the petitioners. 12. 11. The other question requires determination in the present writ petition is whether the Notification issued by the University dated 09-6-2014 prescribing the procedure for appointing ad hoc lecturers which has been mentioned in detail herein above is unconstitutional and in violation of the Fundamental Rights of the petitioners. 12. The contention of the petitioners is that the University invented a method to eliminate the candidates in whom it is not interested and the University ought to have conducted the written test and oral interview as was done in the previous years. As to this, it is the contention of the University that as per the directive and guidelines issued by the UGC, the new method has been evolved to select the lecturers for appointment on ad hoc basis and therefore, the same cannot be assailed by the petitioners, who, according to the University, are no more ad hoc lecturers in the University since their contract period came to an end. 13. This Court has examined the scheme under the Notification which has been detailed herein above. The scheme does not appear to be arbitrary or vesting the University with an enormous power to eliminate the candidates of its choice. On this issue, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners relied on Bishnu Biswas v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 774 , wherein the Supreme Court held as follows: "16. The appropriate allocation of marks for interview, where selection is to be made by written test as well as by interview, would depend upon the nature of post and no straitjacket formula can be laid down. Further, there is a distinction while considering the case of employment and of admission for an academic course. The courts have repeatedly emphasised that for the purpose of admission in an educational institution, the allocation of interview marks would not be very high but for the purpose of employment, allocation of marks for interview would depend upon the nature of post. 17. ............. 18. ............. 19. In the instant case, the rules of the game had been changed after conducting the written test and admittedly not at the stage of initiation of the selection process. The marks allocated for the oral interview had been the same as for written test i.e. 50% for each. The manner in which marks have been awarded in the interview to the candidates indicated lack of transparency. The marks allocated for the oral interview had been the same as for written test i.e. 50% for each. The manner in which marks have been awarded in the interview to the candidates indicated lack of transparency. The candidate who secured 47 marks out of 50 in the written test had been given only 20 marks in the interview while a large number of candidates got equal marks in the interview as in the written examination. Candidate who secured 34 marks in the written examination was given 45 marks in the interview. Similarly, another candidate who secured 36 marks in the written examination was awarded 45 marks in the interview. The fact that today the so-called selected candidates are not in employment, is also a relevant factor to decide the case finally. If the whole selection is scrapped most of the candidates would be ineligible at least in respect of age as the advertisement was issued more than six years ago." 14. The judgment relied on by the learned Senior Counsel is not applicable to the facts of the present case. It is already said, the Notification prescribing the mode or selection which has been detailed herein above does not appear to be arbitrary or unreasonable. The petitioners admitted that there is transparency with regard to 40 marks, they only contend that there is no transparency with regard to remaining 60 marks. The important issue which has to be kept in mind is that if a candidate gets 50 marks he will be re-engaged as an ad hoc lecturer. Even for the remaining 60 marks also, a detailed procedure has been adopted by the University which has been extracted herein above while referring to the averments of the counter filed by the 2nd respondent-University. Merely because a new method has been evolved by the University basing on the guidelines issued by the UGC, it cannot be said that the method has been evolved for the purpose of eliminating certain candidates. The petitioners are not able to show as to how the method evolved by the University is not scientific and in what manner the method would vest the University with enormous and absolute discretion to eliminate the candidates. The petitioners are not able to show as to how the method evolved by the University is not scientific and in what manner the method would vest the University with enormous and absolute discretion to eliminate the candidates. After going through the method under the Notification, this Court is not convinced with the contention raised by the petitioners that the method invests the University with enormous and absolute power to eliminate the candidates. The petitioners who worked as ad hoc lecturers for some time cannot insist upon the University to follow only the previous procedure for their re-engagement. The University for that matter is bound by the guidelines issued by the UGC and if the petitioners are willing to be appointed as ad hoc lecturers, they have to necessarily undergo the process under the Notification dated 09-6-2014 issued by the University. The University has made it clear in their counter that for appointing the candidates on regular basis, the State Government has to issue necessary guidelines and basing on the said guidelines only, the appointments can be made on regular basis. The petitioners who are ad hoc lecturers, as already said, have no vested right to claim absorption into the regular posts of University Lecturers. They were appointed on contract basis and not according to the process prescribed for the recruitment of lecturers on regular basis. 15. For the foregoing reasons, I absolutely see no merit in the writ petition and accordingly dismiss the same. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. No costs.