ORDER : 1. These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been preferred, in sum and substance, with the following prayers and for the sake of convenience, the prayer clauses are being taken from the leading case being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16129/2017. “(a) By appropriate writ order or direction, Annex-4 may kindly be quash and set aside. (b) By appropriate writ order or direction, respondents may kindly be directed to follow AICTE norms for appointment on the post of Assistant Professors and remove requirement of GATE. (c) By appropriate writ order or direction, respondents university may kindly directed to extend the contract of petitioners on Ad Hoc basis for the post of Assistant Professor until regular appointments are made not to replace them with another set of contractual employees. (d) That respondents may kindly be directed to fix the petitioners on applicable pay scale and consider them as regular employees of the college. (e) that the respondents may be directed to grant minimum of the pay scale for the post they are being made to work.” 2. The brief facts as noticed by this Court are that the petitioners are contractual/ad-hoc appointees on the post of Assistant Professor in the various colleges which are autonomous institutions of Government of Rajasthan. The appointment of the petitioners were made against the regular post after judging their eligibility and other conditions which are strictly governed by the AICTE norms. The respondents however, issued an advertisement on 01.07.2017 and the petitioners have challenged this advertisement on the ground that the petitioners who are already discharging their duties shall be substituted by newly recruited contractual persons which shall be a blatant violation of their rights. The National Project Implementation Unit, Unit of Ministry of Human Resources and Development, Government of India invited such applications on contractual basis for Engineering Colleges under the TEQIP (Technical Education Quality Improvement Project), the funds are being disbursed for such TEQIP in accordance with the agreement reached with the World Bank and the Government of India. The project of quality improvement is for the period of 3 years. Such contractual appointment as per the petitioners was to replace the petitioners which were already working on appropriate contract and conditions. 3. The project of quality improvement is for the period of 3 years. Such contractual appointment as per the petitioners was to replace the petitioners which were already working on appropriate contract and conditions. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the AICTE Regulations require the qualification of BE/B.Tech and ME/M.Tech for the post of Assistant Professor whereas the respondents while making a recruitment for their project of quality improvement have imposed the condition that the candidate apart from having such qualifications ought to have qualified the GATE examination as well. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the advertisement and the qualification clause reads as under: “BE/B.Tech and ME/M.Tech in relevant branch with 1st class (60% or 6.75 grade point) either in bachelors of Masters degree from a recognized institution/university (for equivalence UG/PG degree refer Annex-1) and should have qualified through GATE exam.” 5. The main thrust of the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the AICTE is the regulatory body of technical education and once it prescribes for a particular eligibility condition then any other body in the country was not required to deviate from such eligibility conditions. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus, maintained that the petitioners were highly qualified individuals who mostly have done their M.Tech and have considerable experience of teaching in the respondent University. 7. Learned counsel for AICTE Mr. P.R. Singh has come out with a categorical stand that GATE as per the AICTE Norms is not a necessary eligibility qualification and in fact the stand of the learned counsel for AICTE is as follows: “Insofar as AICTE (RIFD Bureau) is concerned, the minimum qualifications prescribed for the post of regular Assist Professor (Engg./Technology) In Gazette Notification dated 05.03.2010 are mentioned below :- Programme Cadre Qualifications Experience Engineering/ Technology Asstt. Professor BE/B.Tech and ME/M. Tech in relevant branch with First Class or equivalent either in BE/B.Tech or ME/M.Tech - However, AICTE has no objection, if a recruiting agency adopts higher standards and qualifications than the minimum qualifications notified by AICTE as long as there is availability of recourses and applicants in the state/country as the case may be”. 8. Professor BE/B.Tech and ME/M. Tech in relevant branch with First Class or equivalent either in BE/B.Tech or ME/M.Tech - However, AICTE has no objection, if a recruiting agency adopts higher standards and qualifications than the minimum qualifications notified by AICTE as long as there is availability of recourses and applicants in the state/country as the case may be”. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has however stated that the centralised engagement process for availing services of specialized teaching faculty under the TEQIP III Project sponsored by the World Bank and Government of India is in addition to the existing faculty already engaged by respondent No.8 institute either on temporary or sanctioned post. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has further pointed out that the apprehensions expressed by the petitioners that they are being replaced by the process initiated by the respondent No.2 is factually incorrect and misplaced. He further submitted that the entire basis for filing of the writ petition was incorrect as the respondents were not in any way substituting the contractual/temporary appointment of the petitioners. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has further stated that the centralized engagement of teaching faculty process initiated by respondent No.2 on behalf of respondent No.8 is to fulfill the faculty requirement of respondent No.2 for seeking accreditation from National Board of Accreditation (autonomous body constituted by Government of India). 11. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has pointed out that it would enable the respondent No.8 institute to seek aid under the aforementioned TEQIP III Project initiated jointly by the Government of India and World Bank. 12. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-Mr. L.M. Acharya further submits that the specialized engagement of teaching faculty through the above centralized engagement process does not seek to create any new teaching cadre in the institute but is merely project related and such engagement would come to an end automatically upon completion of the project and the outer limit is 3 years for the same. Learned counsel further reiterated that neither the centralized engagement process and nor the respondent No.2 are in any manner going to substitute the present employees of the petitioners. The project shall be in addition to the already existing infrastructure and facilities in the college. 13. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 therefore, refutes the arguments that the contractual employee is being replaced by the another set of contractual employees. The project shall be in addition to the already existing infrastructure and facilities in the college. 13. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 therefore, refutes the arguments that the contractual employee is being replaced by the another set of contractual employees. It is further pointed out that in the interest of educational institution i.e. the University that better and more qualified candidates will be able to give inputs to this project which would entitle the university to be upgraded and have better accreditation. Particularly, from National Board of Accreditation. 14. Learned counsel for respondent No.8 has made a categorical statement along with Mr. S.K. Bansal, Principal, Government College of Engineering and Technology, Bikaner who which is the Officer Incharge of one of the case and the categorical statement is that the persons engaged through this contract shall not replace the existing contractual/guest faculty and since the engagement through respondent No.2 shall be in addition to the existing faculties therefore, the petitioner shall not be prejudiced by such engagement. 15. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners’ right as guest faculties/contractual faculties/ temporary faculties shall not be affected by the advertisement dated 30.10.2017 (Annexure-4). The apprehension raised by the petitioners is very well answered by the respondent No.2 and respondent No.8, who have made their stand categorical that the advertisement in question is only for a particular project of 3 years which is in addition to the already existing set up of the faculty to enable the TEQIP III Project to upgrade the technical education in the country and particularly to enable the respondents to have a specialized teaching faculty so as to enable them to seek better accreditation from National Board of Accreditation which is a body of the Government of India. The better accreditation shall definitely entitle this institute for the aid to be received from Government of India and World Bank, as it reflected from Annexure R/1 produced by respondent No.2. 16. Thus, the project of TEQIP III is an effort by the respondents to upgrade the technical education in the country and no way could be said to have any kind of prejudice to the petitioners. 17. 16. Thus, the project of TEQIP III is an effort by the respondents to upgrade the technical education in the country and no way could be said to have any kind of prejudice to the petitioners. 17. Learned counsel for AICTE has already made it clear that the minimum qualification prescribed for regular a Assistant Professor (Engineering/Technology) in gazette notification dated 05.03.2010 was BE/B.Tech and ME/M.Tech in the relevant branch with First Class or equivalent either in BE/B.Tech or ME/M.Tech. However, it is also been reiterated by learned counsel for AICTE that if any of the recruitment agency adopts higher standards and qualification then the minimum qualification notified by AICTE as long as there is availability of recourses and applicants in the State, the same can be permitted. 18. This Court finds that once the status of the petitioners is protected then there cannot be any cause of giving any indulgence in the selection process for the post of Assistant Professor on contract for the TEQIP Project. Moreover, this Court has also seen the stand of AICTE and the necessary qualifications as per the AICTE, the minimum standard notification 2010 prescribed by respondent No.2 and the additional requirement of GATE exam can at best be said to be a higher standard and thus, it does not call for any interference of this Court at this stage when the project itself is for 3 years and is in addition to the existing set up of the respondent institute. 19. Thus, in light of the statement made by learned counsel for respondent No.8 as well as Officer Incharge present in Court and learned counsel for respondent No.2 that the petitioners who are otherwise qualified as per the AICTE norms shall not be substituted by the project employees inducted through Annexure-4. In accordance with the aforesaid assimilation of facts and assurances made by the respondents the present petitions are disposed of with direction to the respondents that they shall not substitute the existing contractual/guest faculties with the project recruitment of Assistant Professor on contractual basis for TEQIP. The petitioners shall continue to governed by their original terms and conditions of their contract and will remain subject to AICTE conditions.