JUDGMENT Sanjay Dwivedi, J. - Since pleadings are complete and learned counsel for the parties agreed to argue the matter finally, therefore, they are heard finally. For the purpose of convenience, facts of W.P. No.1157/2019 are being taken- up. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioners seeking following reliefs:- "(i) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 22.12.2018 as arbitrary, illegal and void. (ii) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to rejoin and continue the services on contract basis of the petitioner till regular appointments are made. (iii) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 University to implement the policy dated 05.06.2018 by considering the petitioners for regular appointment and pending such appointment to continue the petitioners in service. (iv) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondents from making fresh appointment on contract basis. (v) Any other suitable relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted together with the cost of this petition." 3. Before resolving the controversy involved in the case, the facts in brief which are required to be mentioned, are as follows:- The respondent No.2 i.e. the Barkatullah Vishwavidyalaya, Bhopal, started a Self Financing Technical Institute in the year 1997. In order to meet out the manpower requirement for running Self Financing Institution, respondent No.2-University formulated an Exit Policy which was duly approved by the State Government vide order dated 03.08.2006. The policy is available on record as Annexure-P/2. In the Exit Policy dated 03.08.2006, it was clearly postulated that the appointment shall be made only on contract basis and shall be co-terminous with the department/ institution/ courses or subject. On 27.11.2015, respondent No.2-University issued an advertisement inviting eligible candidates for a walk-in-interview for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor on contract basis in various disciplines. In the said advertisement, a condition was put-forward that the appointment shall be initially made for a period of six months and further it could be extended upto a maximum period of three years depending upon the work performance of the teachers. In the said advertisement, a condition was put-forward that the appointment shall be initially made for a period of six months and further it could be extended upto a maximum period of three years depending upon the work performance of the teachers. The order of appointment also contained that the same has been made in terms of the Exit Policy. The petitioners participated in the said selection process pursuant to the advertisement and they were appointed as Assistant Professor on contract basis vide order dated 23.12.2015 (Anneuxre-P/4). The order of appointment contained the terms and conditions of appointment. As per Condition No.3, the appointment was initially for a period of six months and after performing the duties satisfactorily during the said period, the same could be extended for a maximum period of three years. Accordingly, the appointment of the petitioners was extended from time-to-time. Since the term of appointment of the petitioners was coming to an end, the University constituted a Committee to examine the feasibility for continuing their appointment and held a meeting on 18.12.2016, in which it was recommended that since as per the terms and conditions of appointment of the petitioners, the maximum period of contract appointment was three years, therefore, it would not be appropriate to extend the term of contract beyond three years. The Committee, accordingly, decided for terminating the contract appointment of the petitioners and simultaneously decided to make fresh appointments on contract basis in view of the provisions contained in Ordinance No.4(C) of the University. An order was issued on 22.12.2018 (Annexure- P/14), which is impugned herein, whereby the services of the petitioners got terminated. On 26.12.2018 (Annexure-P/16), a notice was issued by respondent No.2-University whereby the petitioners were invited to work as Guest Faculty Teachers till the new appointments on contract basis were made. Assailing the said action of the University, the instant petition has been filed. 4. The challenge is founded mainly on the ground that the appointment of the petitioners has been made under the Exit Policy, which does not provide any provision for appointment on contract basis for any fixed term or duration. On the contrary, it specifically provides that such contract appointment shall continue till the concerned courses are run by the University. 4. The challenge is founded mainly on the ground that the appointment of the petitioners has been made under the Exit Policy, which does not provide any provision for appointment on contract basis for any fixed term or duration. On the contrary, it specifically provides that such contract appointment shall continue till the concerned courses are run by the University. It is also contended by the petitioners that if any such condition is imposed in the advertisement or in the order of appointment, the same is non est in law being contrary to the Exit Policy. As per the petitioners, in absence of any statutory rules governing the service condition of the petitioners as contract teachers, the Exit Policy would hold the field and their appointments have to be regulated in accordance with the provisions contained in the said policy. 5. It is contented by learned counsel for the petitioners that the condition imposed in the advertisement and also in the order of appointment, runs contrary to the Exit Policy, the same does not bind the petitioners as there cannot be any estoppel against law. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the conditions imposed in the advertisement and also in the order of appointment, runs contrary to Exit Policy, the same does not bind the petitioners as there cannot be any estoppel against law. Although, the petitioners have submitted that at the time of appointment, they were not aware of the provisions of the Exit Policy and they have accepted the appointment and the conditions mentioned therein because at that time, they were not in a bargaining position. As per the learned counsel for the petitioners, even otherwise, the conditions contained in the order of appointment since not part of the Exit Policy, therefore, the said term cannot used against the petitioners. 6. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that at the time of appointment, the petitioners were not in a position to bargain thereby objecting the condition imposed in the order of appointment, but that does not mean that they have acquiesced or waived their right to challenge the action of the respondents as their services are being terminated after completion of maximum period of three years. 7. 7. As per the petitioners, the Ordinance No.4(C) came into force in the year 2018 and as such, it is not applicable upon the petitioners because their appointment was made in the year 2015. Thus, according to the petitioners, their appointment is governed strictly with the terms of Exit Policy and even otherwise, the Ordinance No.4(C) (Annexure-P/13) also provides that the appointment under the Ordinance shall be made on contract basis against a post constituted by the University under Self Financing Scheme subject to availability of funds in the Scheme and as per the Exit Policy of the Government. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that Clause-18 of the Ordinance provides that the provision of Ordinance shall not supersede any contract Act passed and issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the Ordinance otherwise procures the Exit Policy of the State Government. 9. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that since the courses for which the petitioners have been engaged on contract basis, are still continuing in the University showing the need of services of the petitioners and would also be clear from the minutes of the meeting of the Committee that after terminating the contractual appointment of the petitioners, they have again been invited to work as Guest Faculty. Learned counsel further submitted that giving appointment as Guest Faculty in place of contract teachers, is in violation of the terms and conditions as under the status of Guest Faculty, they would be on the basis of per lacture. On this basis, their remuneration will considerably be lower as compared to the remuneration which was being paid to them as contract teachers i.e. Rs.25,000/-. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further contended that as per the settled principle of law, since the appointment of the petitioners was co-terminous and the courses for which they have been engaged, are still continuing, therefore, they cannot be replaced by another set of contract employees and no such ad-hoc arrangement can be made removing them from service. He placed reliance upon the decisions reported in parties being Mohd. Abdul Kadir & Another Vs. Director General of Police, Assam & Others, (2009) 6 SCC 611 , parties being State of Punjab & Others Vs. Supreet Rajpal & Another, (2007) 13 SCC 290 and parties being State of Haryana & Others Vs. He placed reliance upon the decisions reported in parties being Mohd. Abdul Kadir & Another Vs. Director General of Police, Assam & Others, (2009) 6 SCC 611 , parties being State of Punjab & Others Vs. Supreet Rajpal & Another, (2007) 13 SCC 290 and parties being State of Haryana & Others Vs. Piara Singh & Others, (1992) 4 SCC 118 . 11. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that there cannot be any estoppel against law, for which they relied upon parties being Tata Chemicals Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jamnagar, (2015) 11 SCC 628 and parties being Olgatallis & Others Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation & Others, (1985) 3 SCC 545 . Therefore, the petitioners are claiming that the order impugned dated 22.12.2018 (Annexure-P/14) be set-aside and they have further claimed that by issuing appropriate directions, the respondents be directed to allow the petitioners to continue in service on contract basis till regular appointments are made and also to implement the policy dated 05.06.2018 (Annexure-P/7). 12. The respondents have filed their reply stating therein that in the order of appointment of the petitioners, it was clearly stipulated that the said appointment was for a maximum period of three years on contract basis and the petitioners have given an affidavit i.e. Annexure-R/1 admitting the terms and conditions of appointment. Therefore, they cannot challenge the action of the respondents saying that their services cannot be terminated and they should be allowed to continue even after completing the tenure of three years. It is also stated by the respondents that the petitioners are relying upon the Clause-1.14.1 of the policy dated 05.06.2018 (Annexure-P/7), which provides that services of the petitioners cannot be terminated without a promising reason. However, as per the respondents, they sought instructions from the Higher Education Department as to what could be done with the services of the petitioners as their term of appointment was over. Thereafter, vide communication dated 12.02.2019, it has been clarified that the provisions of the policy dated 05.06.2018 are not applicable to the petitioners. 13. The respondents have further stated that as per the communication dated 22.12.2018 and 12.02.2019, the provisions of policy are not applicable to the petitioners because they are the employees of University which is an autonomous organization. Thereafter, vide communication dated 12.02.2019, it has been clarified that the provisions of the policy dated 05.06.2018 are not applicable to the petitioners. 13. The respondents have further stated that as per the communication dated 22.12.2018 and 12.02.2019, the provisions of policy are not applicable to the petitioners because they are the employees of University which is an autonomous organization. It is also submitted by the respondents that in the meeting of the Standing Committee held on 20.12.2018, a decision has been taken to terminate the services of the petitioners and as per the Ordinance No.4(C), contract appointments be made. It is also resolved in the said meeting that till the appointments are made, the petitioners be allowed to continue as Guest Lecturers and the said offer has been accepted by the petitioners and therefore, after accepting the appointment as Guest Lecturers, the petitioners cannot challenge the said order. 14. It is further stated by the respondents in their reply that no temporary arrangement is being made replacing the petitioners with another set of temporary employees, however, services of the petitioners have been terminated as their period of contract is over. It is also stated that no temporary appointments are being made but only regular appointments will be made, if so required. 15. The respondents, therefore, submitted that the petitioners have no right to claim that they be allowed to continue even after their contract period is over and claimed that the petition is without any substance and no legal right accrues in favour of the petitioners, therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed. 16. After hearing the arguments of both the parties and perusal of record, the only question emerges for consideration is "whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, services of the petitioners can be continued with the same terms and conditions on which they were engaged under the Scheme of Exit Policy, or their termination can be held proper as the term of their appointment on contract basis i.e. for a period of three years, is over." 17. The appointment of the petitioners were made in pursuance to an advertisement dated 27.11.2015 (Annexure-P/3). The advertisement very clearly contained that the appointments would be made on contract basis under the provisions of Exit Policy. The appointment of the petitioners were made in pursuance to an advertisement dated 27.11.2015 (Annexure-P/3). The advertisement very clearly contained that the appointments would be made on contract basis under the provisions of Exit Policy. The posts of the petitioners have been sanctioned in pursuance to the order passed by the State Government on a proposal made by respondent No.2-University for creation of posts under the Self Financing Scheme and the University formulated an Exit Policy to meet-out the manpower requirement, which was duly approved by the State Government vide Annexure-P/2. Condition No.8 of the order dated 03.08.2006 granting sanction of 124 posts for the Self Financing Technical Institution, the said sanction was given by the States with certain conditions which is also contained in the order dated 03.08.2006. Condition No.8 deals as under:- 18. Further, Condition No.13, which has also the same significance in the issue involved, is reproduced hereinbelow:- 19. The order of appointment of the petitioners was issued with the terms and conditions which were in consonance with the order passed by the State Government on 03.08.2006. The appointment was initially made for a period of six months and that was to be extended for maximum period of three years evaluating the satisfactory work of the petitioners. 20. Moreover, the extension was granted to the petitioners certifying that they have performed their duties satisfactorily and there was no complaint with regard to their work. The period of contract was extended till three years and thereafter, in a meeting of the Executive Council held on 20.12.2018, it was resolved that it is not proper to extend the services of the petitioners as they have completed their term of three years and fresh appointments would be made according to the Ordinance No.4(C). 21. Although, as per the petitioners, the Ordinance No.4(C) came into force in the year 2018 and is not applicable to the petitioners as their appointment was made in the year 2015, however, I am not convinced with the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners because the question of applicability of the said Ordinance is not relevant here as the term of appointment of the petitioners was over and decision was taken by the Committee constituted by the University that in absence of any provision for extending the term of appointment of the petitioners, fresh appointments could be made under the provisions of Ordinance No.4(C). However, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that even in Ordinance No.4(C), there is no provision for making appointment as Guest Faculty although it provides that the appointment has to be made as per the Exit Policy of the Government. Clause-3 of the Ordinance is relevant and is quoted hereinbelow:- "....3. Any appointment under this ordinance shall be made on contract basis against a post constituted by the university under self financing schemes, subject to the availability of the funds in the scheme and as per Exit policy of the Govt." 22. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also contended that Clause-18 of the Ordinance No.4(C) saves the contract under which the petitioners have been appointed, but, it is also not relevant and I do not find any substance in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners because the contract which was executed between the respondent and the petitioners, was for a maximum period of three years and that period is over. Therefore, the said contract does not exist and the question of saving the said contract, does not arise and Clause-18 does not include the said contract which does not exist. 23. Although the respondents have taken a decision and stated in their reply that they would not make any further ad-hoc arrangement replacing the petitioners, but they have been allowed to continue as Guest Faculty Teachers till the regular appointments are made. It is also stated by the respondents that since the petitioners accepted the appointment as Guest Faculty Teachers and also sworn affidavit accepting that condition, now they are estopped from challenging the said appointment and as such, as per the respondents, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 24. The stand of the respondents is not acceptable and does not befit to the facts and circumstances of the case. Indisputably, the posts against which the petitioners have been engaged, have been sanctioned by the State Government vide order dated 03.08.2006 (Annexure-P/2) with specific term i.e. Condition No.8 as quoted hereinabove, which very clearly provides that if any appointments are made under the Exit Policy, they would be coterminous and would be continued till the courses for which posts have been sanctioned, continue. It is not a case of the respondents that the courses for which posts have been sanctioned, are over. It is not a case of the respondents that the courses for which posts have been sanctioned, are over. On the contrary, the respondents submit that no ad-hoc arrangement appointing contract employees would be made till the regular appointments are made. The respondents have also offered appointment to the petitioners but under a different category i.e. Guest Faculty Teacher. 25. I am not satisfied with the stand taken by the respondents that appointment initially made by the University in favour of the petitioners, was for a period of three years only and after expiry of the said period, they have become powerless as there is no provision to extend the said appointment or period of contract. The stand of the respondents is also contrary to the order passed by the State Government because the posts against which the petitioners have been engaged, got sanctioned by the respondent-University with the order of State Government for a particular project and therefore, in the order dated 03.08.2006, it is mentioned in Clause-8 that appointments would be continued and treated to be valid till the respective course, for which posts are sanctioned, would continue and after the closure of the said courses, the appointment made against the said course, would automatically be treated to be ended. In view of this, the respondent-University can extend the contract of the petitioners and they may be allowed to continue till the courses continue. 26. But, I am not satisfied with the action of the respondent-University whereby they have engaged the petitioners as Guest Faculty Teachers whereas in the order of the State Government and also in the Exit Policy, there is no provision for making any appointment of Guest Faculty Teachers, therefore, the appointment made in favour of the petitioners after expiry of their contract term, vide order dated 26.12.2018, is not proper. 27. It is also unacceptable since the respondents have come up with a stand that they would not make any ad-hoc arrangement till the regular appointments are made, but changing the status of the petitioners treating them to be Guest Faculty Teachers. Thus, it is purely an arbitrary and illegal action on the part of the respondents. 28. 27. It is also unacceptable since the respondents have come up with a stand that they would not make any ad-hoc arrangement till the regular appointments are made, but changing the status of the petitioners treating them to be Guest Faculty Teachers. Thus, it is purely an arbitrary and illegal action on the part of the respondents. 28. So far as the decision relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, in the case of Piara Singh (supra) is concerned, therein the Supreme Court has observed that- "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." 29. The same analogy has been followed by the Supreme Court further in the case of Supreet Rajpal (supra), in which the Supreme Court in Paragraph-5, has observed as under:- "5. Learned counsel for the appellants, during the course of hearing, had referred to an order passed by this Court in a group of several civil appeals i.e. Civil Appeal No.8745 of 2003 and other appeals, in Hargurpratap Singh v. State of Punjab, (2007) 13 SCC 292 disposed of on 7-11-2003. Particular stress was laid on the following observations: (SCC pp.292-93, para 3) "3. We have carefully looked into the judgment of the High Court and other pleadings that have been put forth before this Court. It is clear that though the appellants may not be entitled to regular appointment as such it cannot be said that they will not be entitled to the minimum of the pay scale nor that they should not be continued till regular incumbents are appointed. The course adopted by the High Court is to displace one ad hoc arrangement by another ad hoc arrangement which is not at all appropriate for these persons who have gained experience which will be more beneficial and useful to the colleges concerned rather than to appoint persons afresh on ad hoc basis. Therefore, we set aside the orders made by the High Court to the extent the same deny the claim of the appellants of minimum pay scale and continuation in service till regular incumbents are appointed. We direct that they shall be continued in service till regular appointments are made on minimum of the pay scale. Therefore, we set aside the orders made by the High Court to the extent the same deny the claim of the appellants of minimum pay scale and continuation in service till regular incumbents are appointed. We direct that they shall be continued in service till regular appointments are made on minimum of the pay scale. The appeals shall stand allowed in part accordingly." " 30. Further, the same view has also been reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Abdul Kadir (supra), wherein it has been observed that:- "16. We may next consider the challenge to the procedure of annual termination and reappointment introduced by the Circular dated 17-3- 1995. The PIF Scheme and the PIF Additional Scheme were introduced by the Government of India. The Scheme does not contemplate or require such periodical termination and reappointment. Only Ex-servicemen are eligible to be selected under the Scheme and that too after undergoing regular selection process under the Scheme. They joined the Scheme being under the impression that they will be continued as long as the PIF Additional Scheme was continued. The artificial annual breaks and reappointments were introduced by the State agency entrusted with the operation of the Scheme. This Court has always frowned upon artificial breaks in service. 17. When the ad hoc appointment is under a scheme and is in accordance with the selection process prescribed by the scheme, there is no reason why those appointed under the scheme should not be continued as long as the scheme continues. Ad hoc appointments under schemes are normally coterminous with the scheme (subject of course to earlier termination either on medical or disciplinary grounds, or for unsatisfactory service or on attainment of normal age of retirement). Irrespective of the length of their ad hoc service or the scheme, they will not be entitled to regularisation nor to the security of tenure and service benefits available to the regular employees. In this background, particularly in view of the continuing Scheme, the ex-serviceman employed after undergoing the selection process, need not be subjected to the agony, anxiety, humiliation and vicissitudes of annual termination and re-engagement, merely because their appointment is termed as ad hoc appointments. 18. In this background, particularly in view of the continuing Scheme, the ex-serviceman employed after undergoing the selection process, need not be subjected to the agony, anxiety, humiliation and vicissitudes of annual termination and re-engagement, merely because their appointment is termed as ad hoc appointments. 18. We are therefore of the view that the learned Single Judge was justified in observing that the process of termination and reappointment every year should be avoided and the appellants should be continued as long as the Scheme continues, but purely on ad hoc and temporary basis, coterminous with the Scheme. The Circular dated 17-3-1995 directing artificial breaks by annual terminations followed by fresh appointment, being contrary to the PIF Additional Scheme and contrary to the principles of service jurisprudence, is liable to be quashed." 31. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law by the Supreme Court, in the present case also, I have no hesitation to hold that the order terminating the services of the petitioners merely because their contract term is over, is not proper and thus the same does not deserve any seal of approval. Accordingly, in my opinion, those orders being illegal, are hereby set-aside. 32. I am also not convinced with the stand taken by the respondents with regard to the appointment offered by the University to the petitioners to work as Guest Faculty Teachers, as the term of contract service is over and though the same has also been accepted by the petitioners and they have also given their undertaking, it obviates the petitioners from raising their voice challenging their appointment on the post of Guest Faculty Teachers as per the settled principle of law that the rule of estoppel is not applicable against the law. 33. In this regard, the Supreme Court in the case of Olgatallis (supra) has observed that- "For enforcement of fundamental right, the rule of estoppel is not applicable." 34. Further, in the case of Tata Chemicals Limited (supra), the observation made by the Supreme Court, is as follows:- "In law equally the Tribunal ought to have realised that there can be no estoppel against law. If the law requires that something be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner, and if not done in that manner has no existence in the eye of the law at all. If the law requires that something be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner, and if not done in that manner has no existence in the eye of the law at all. The Customs Authorities are not absolved from following the law depending upon the acts of a particular assessee. Something that is illegal cannot convert itself into something legal by the act of a third person. The Tribunal's judgment is set aside on all these counts." 35. From the above, it is clear that the appointment of the petitioners was under the Exit Policy, which clearly provides that the appointment should be continued till the project ends and admittedly, the courses for which the appointments were made, are still functional and there is no possibility of their closure in near future. The respondents have also admitted this fact that they would not make any ad-hoc arrangement till the regular appointments are made, then they are not right in appointing the petitioners changing their status treating them to be Guest Faculty Teachers only to avoid their fundamental right to be continued as contract teachers and to put them in a monetary loss, since as per the contract teachers, they would get Rs.25,000/- per month whereas as a Guest Faculty Teacher, they would be paid lecture-wise. Such a conduct of respondent No.2-University is unacceptable inasmuch as it is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Exit Policy under which the petitioners have been appointed. 36. In view of the above, the order dated 22.12.2018 (Annexure-P/14) terminating the services of the petitioners, is hereby set-aside and the order dated 26.12.2018 (Annexure-P/16) appointing the petitioners as Guest Faculty Teachers, is also set-aside. The respondent No.2-University is directed to treat the petitioners to be contract teachers and to give them the same status as had been given by way of their appointment initially made by the respondent-University vide order dated 23.12.2015 (Annexure-P/4). 37. Accordingly, these petitions stand allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. No order as to costs.