JUDGMENT : In the aforesaid writ petitions, common question of law and facts arise and hence they have been heard together and are being disposed off by this common order. 2. All the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions are aggrieved by the order dated 11.05.2018 contained in Memo No. 949 issued under the signature of the Director, Employment and Training, Labour Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna whereby, taking note of the general complaint of people regarding irregularities in the appointment of part time/Guest Instructors (petitioners), their appointment was cancelled with immediate effect. The order further indicates that with such cancellation of appointment of part time/Guest Instructors, the vacancy which would arise would be filled up along with other vacancies through an online process through the portal developed by the NIC. The order further indicates that such proposal has the approval and sanction of the Departmental Minister of the Labour Resources Department, Government of Bihar. 3. The primary grounds of challenge to the aforesaid order referred to above by all the petitioners is that by virtue of the aforesaid order, an arrangement of appointment of part time/Guest Instructors in I.T.I.s in the State of Bihar has been replaced by another temporary/provisional scheme which is impermissible in the eyes of law and that a sweeping order has been passed, taking into account the complaints with regard to the irregularities in the appointment process, without probing into the correctness of such complaints and whether such complaints were directed against the appointees/petitioners. 4. The other ground of challenge is that with such order being effected, the entire teaching process in I.T.I.s would come to a stand-still which would serve no good for anyone concerned. 5. The petitioners have also raised the plea that their right of livelihood has been mercilessly taken away without confronting them with any allegation against them and specially in the background of their discharging their functions to the best of their ability and to the satisfaction of all concerned. 6. In C.W.J.C. No. 21657 of 2018, there is only one petitioner whereas C.W.J.C. No. 22211 of 2018 has been filed by as many as 939 petitioners. 7. 6. In C.W.J.C. No. 21657 of 2018, there is only one petitioner whereas C.W.J.C. No. 22211 of 2018 has been filed by as many as 939 petitioners. 7. It would be relevant here to note that pursuant to an advertisement dated 22.07.2016, the petitioners were called for interview and thereafter a panel of the recommendees were prepared which was sent to the Director, Employment and Training, Labour Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna for its approval. The aforesaid panel was sent to the Principals of different Industrial Institutions for appointment and respective appointment letters to the petitioners were issued by the Principals of different Industrial Training Institutes in the State of Bihar. 8. Ever since their appointment, the petitioners have been performing their duties to the best of their ability and to the satisfaction of everyone. 9. The order impugned, it has been alleged, was passed only when a demand was made for payment of their salary which had not been paid to them for about a year. 10. The stand of the respondents is that the advertisement dated 22.07.2016 was not for the purposes of any regular or contractual appointment of Instructors but only for the purposes of preparation of a panel for Guest Instructors/part time Instructors who were to be inducted temporarily on an hourly basis as per the requirement of the I.T.I.s. However, later, large scale illegalities/irregularities in the preparation and selection of the panel was unearthed and in that regard several complaints were lodged by the aggrieved persons. Only after consideration of those complaints and an enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Committee which was constituted for that purpose which recommended for cancellation of the engagement of the petitioners, that the impugned order was passed. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has also stated that the materials available on record gave a strong suspicion in the mind of the Government that the process of appointment of part time/Guest Instructors was not free of blemishes and only in order to provide a transparent and irregularity free appointment process that the impugned order was passed for the purposes of filling up all the vacancies by a fresh process of appointment by an online process through the portal developed in that regard by the NIC. 12. 12. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the process/terms and conditions for online empanelment of Guest Instructors in the Government I.T.I.s through the portal of Labour Resources Department, Bihar, Patna has been finalized by an order issued vide Memo No. 2424 dated 24.10.2018 under the signature of the Special Secretary, Labour Resources Department, Bihar, Patna. 13. It is the stand of the State that a new portal with full information of procedure has been developed by the NIC and an advertisement for preparation of panel of Guest/part time Instructors has already been published in the newspapers with last date of submission of application being 26.11.2018. 14. The preparation of fresh panel in terms of the aforesaid advertisement, according to the learned counsel for the State is in an advanced stage and that the same will be completed on priority basis. 15. On the aforesaid grounds, the learned counsel for the State has sought to defend the order impugned. 16. So far as the claim of the petitioners for being paid for the work that they have done, it has been urged that necessary allotments have been made available to the Principals of the concerned Institutes and the grievances of the petitioners would shortly be redressed. 17. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, vide I.A. No. 162 of 2019 has also sought quashing of the order contained in Memo No. 2424 dated 24.10.2018 (Annexure-7) issued by the Special Secretary, Labour Resources Department, Government of Bihar by which approval for the amendment in the preparation of panel for appointment of Guest Instructors, I.T.I has been granted, as also for quashing the advertisement dated 09.11.2018 (Annexure-8) issued by the Director, Employment & Training, Bihar, Patna by which application has been invited for preparation of panel for appointment of Guest Instructors. 18. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has stated that the aforesaid two orders contained in Annexures-7 & 8 to the writ petition was passed during the pendency of the present writ petitions and there is no Cabinet approval for the same. 19. 18. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has stated that the aforesaid two orders contained in Annexures-7 & 8 to the writ petition was passed during the pendency of the present writ petitions and there is no Cabinet approval for the same. 19. It has further been averred on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned order contained in Annexure-1 has already been tested by a Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10019 of 2018 wherein, this court found that a sweeping order was passed cancelling the appointment of all Guest Instructors/part time Instructors in the I.T.Is in the State of Bihar merely on the basis of complaints with respect to the illegalities/irregularities in the appointment process of the year 2017 when the petitioners in the aforesaid case were the appointees of the selection process of 2016 against whom there was no complaints whatsoever. 20. Under such circumstances, a Bench of this Court held that the order of cancellation of appointment will not effect the petitioner No. 2 therein, petitioner No. 1 being a group representing such Guest Instructors. It was also directed by this Court that since petitioner No. 2 therein had been illegally deprived of his job, he shall be entitled to be paid 50 percent of the back wages. 21. From the perusal of the records and the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court has, without any doubt gather the following facts: 22. All the petitioners have been empanelled and offered employment in various I.T.I.s as part time/Guest Instructors pursuant to the selection process of 2016 for which there was no complaint whatsoever. The aforesaid fact stands established with the stand of the State in C.W.J.C. No. 10019 of 2018 and by the impugned order, the respondents clearly intended to substitute the present arrangement of part time/Guest Instructors in various I.T.I.s of the State by another selection process for part time/Guest Instructors and not permanent appointment. This does not appear to be understandable for the reason that if in the earlier appointment/selection process, irregularities were complained and for rectification of which a portal was developed by NIC for online process of fresh empanelment, there was no reason to continue with such temporary arrangement of empanelling part time and Guest Instructors again. This does not appear to be understandable for the reason that if in the earlier appointment/selection process, irregularities were complained and for rectification of which a portal was developed by NIC for online process of fresh empanelment, there was no reason to continue with such temporary arrangement of empanelling part time and Guest Instructors again. If the intention of the employer/government was to make the appointment process transparent and without blemish, it should have turned its attention and ought to have thought of making permanant appointment against vacant posts with even more stricter requirements of appraisal and assessment. Substituting one scheme of temporary/part time/Guest Instructors with another of the same nature merely reflects that there has not been any application of mind in passing the impugned order or initiating a fresh process of empanellment for which an advertisement has been issued on 24.10.2018 (Annexure- 8). 23. This Court, even for a second is not harping on the proposition that a contractual employment/engagement can confer in such appointee a right of permanence or a right to continue: nonetheless in a Government organization, the same cannot be allowed to happen on wrong/faulty/meretritious reasons. 24. This Court would have understood if such system of part time/Guest faculty would have been replaced by a full proof system of appointment on a permanent basis which could have reflected the intention of the State/employer to come out against corruption/irregularities in the selection process even if it were for engagement on temporary/part time basis but not otherwise. With the new scheme and the new process though online new portal developed by the NIC, there would still remain enough spaces in the joints for perpetuation of illegalities/irregularities in the selection/empanellment process. 25. What has struck this Court is that no effort has been made for engagement of permanent/empanellment of permanent Instructors against vacant posts. 26. In such a scenario, the ground on which the impugned order cancelling the engagement of the petitioners has been passed, appears to be suspect and prima facie unsustainable. 27. In Brahma Tiwari vs. State of Bihar & Ors reported in 2000(2) PLJR(HC) 6, the claim of the petitioner therein for regularization of his service as Clerk was contested by the State on the premise that his appointment was only a stop gap arrangement. 27. In Brahma Tiwari vs. State of Bihar & Ors reported in 2000(2) PLJR(HC) 6, the claim of the petitioner therein for regularization of his service as Clerk was contested by the State on the premise that his appointment was only a stop gap arrangement. A Bench of this Court, after taking note of the Supreme Court judgment in Anil Kumar & Ors vs. State of Bihar reported in 1999(1) PLJR 487 held that an adhoc and temporary employee ought not to be substituted by another adhoc or temporary employee but only by a regularly appointed person. 28. The Supreme Court, it was observed, deprecated the action of the State in continuing with the adhoc arrangement and the post ought to be filled up by following the normal procedure of recruitment. 29. In Dr. Shambhavi Kumari vs. The Union of India & Ors reported in 2018(2) PLJR 593 , however a Bench of this Court has held that the proposition that one contractual appointment cannot be replaced by another is not an absolute principle but has to be tested on case to case basis and even if ordinarily it should be avoided but if the same has been rested on a justifiable reason, it would not require any interference. 30. In the present case, the complaints appear to have been raised with respect to the selection process of 2017 and not of 2016 of which the petitioners are the recommendees and that by the fresh advertisement, a system of adhoc/part time appointment is sought to be substituted by another of the same nature on the ostensible plea of the expectation of the fresh process to be without irregularity/blemish. 31. No cogent grounds have been urged on behalf of the State for justifying such replacement of an existing adhoc arrangement with another adhoc arrangement. 32. This Court is therefore constrained to observe that if at all, the government requires to substitute a fresh panel which would take care of the vacancies in the I.T.I.s for the post of Instructors, it should consider about permanent appointment and in the absence of such a move, if the Government intends to keep the adhocism intact but with a fresh panel, it would need to and must indicate the life of the recommendees of the earlier panel. In the absence of the aforesaid two requirements, the order impugned cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 33. However, since the petitioners are only engaged on a part time basis as Guest Instructors whose engagements have been cancelled, this Court would not consider it appropriate to stop/forestall the process of fresh empanellment which is already in place and the process is afoot. However, for recommending the names of fresh panelists for engagement as part time/Guest Insructors, the State would require to circumscribe/prescribe the life of the erstwhile panel of the recommendees. It would also be necessary for this Court to indicate/direct that in case of fresh process of empanellment, the earlier empanelled candidates/petitioners ought to be permitted to apply and they should not be discriminated against. 34. The learned counsel for the State has also informed this Court that against the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 10019 of 2018 (I.T.I Atithi Anudeshak Sangh, Bihar, Patna through its President namely Sikandar Prasad & Ors vs. The State of Bihar & Ors), an appeal before the Division Bench of this Court has been filed which is pending consideration. 35. Thus the impugned order dated dated 11.05.2018 contained in Memo No. 949 issued under the signature of the Director, Employment and Training, Labour Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, for the present, would remain in ‘abeyance’ and in the interregnum period, before the State prescribes the life of the erstwhile panel, the petitioners shall not be disturbed and shall be permitted to continue with their engagement. This Court says so also for the purposes of parity (refered to the order dated 13.08.2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 10019 of 2018). 36. This order would however be subject to the outcome of the LPA referred to above or the government coming out with any specific rule/process of appointment or rule regulating the life of the panel. 37. The writ petitions are allowed subject to the aforesaid directions/observations.