JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the office order as contained in Memo No. 150, dated 28.06.2014, issued under the signature of Principal Incharge, Government Polytechnic, Dumka by which his service has been cancelled and the office order issued vide Memo No. 413, dated 17.09.2013 has been made ineffective with immediate effect so far petitioner is concerned. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to regularise his service to the post of Lecturer (Electronics) since he has rendered his service under the respondents since 1995. Petitioner has also prayed for a direction upon the respondents restraining them to give effect to the impugned order as contained in Memo No. 150, dated 28.06.2014, till decision for permanent absorption/ regularization of his service is taken by the respondents. 3. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as a temporary part time Lecturer in the year 1995 vide letter no. 327, dated 11.09.1995 on payment of consolidated amount of Rs. 1,300/- per month under the Govt. Polytechnic, Dumka and used to take 4 to 6 classes per day regularly similar to the duty of a full time Lecturer. After rendering more than five years of service, petitioner requested for grant of minimum pay scale prescribed for regularly appointed lecturers in view of the fact that petitioner was also rendering duty at par with the regular lecturers. When no heed was paid to request of the petitioner, he filed C.W.J.C. No. 1732 of 2001 before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 16.10.2001 directing the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner in minimum pay scale prescribed for the regularly appointed lecturers. A direction was also given to the respondents to give age relaxation and preference in regularization. Thereafter, pursuant to memo no. 298, dated 01.03.2004, an order was passed for payment of salary to the petitioner with effect from 2001 itself. The appeals preferred by the State before the Hon’ble Division Bench as also before the Hon’ble Apex Court also stood dismissed vide order dated 17.07.2006 passed in L.P.A. No. 497 of 2005 and order dated 04.01.2007 passed in SLP No. 20969/2006 respectively. 4. The appeals preferred by the State before the Hon’ble Division Bench as also before the Hon’ble Apex Court also stood dismissed vide order dated 17.07.2006 passed in L.P.A. No. 497 of 2005 and order dated 04.01.2007 passed in SLP No. 20969/2006 respectively. 4. It is further case of the petitioner that in spite of orders mentioned hereinabove, the respondents stopped paying minimum salary to the petitioner from November, 2006 leading to filing of W.P.(S) No. 2554 of 2007. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 22.02.2008 directing the respondents to pay salary in view of orders passed earlier. In the year 2010, the Department of Science and Technology issued a Resolution vide Memo No. 3397, dated 26.11.2010, whereby a decision was taken regarding payment of salary to the part time lecturer working in the Govt. Polytechnic and it was decided that the part time lecturer shall be paid honorarium at the rate of Rs.250/- per lecture and maximum of Rs.12,500/- per month. Petitioner again filed W.P.(S) No. 837 of 2011 praying therein to issue direction to the respondents to pay him salary/honorarium in terms of Resolution issued vide Memo No. 3397, dated 26.11.2010. The said writ petition is still pending and the State has taken the stand that one Menashi Marandi was transferred to the College where petitioner is working. Said Menashi Marandi is a Lecturer in the Department of Electronics but as there was no vacant post in the Department of Electronics, she had been adjusted against the post held by petitioner i.e. in the Faculty of Electrical. However, the Deputy Secretary, Department of Science and Technology, vide letter no. 758, dated 19.05.2011, has issued direction to pay salary/ honorarium to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month. 5. It is further case of the petitioner that pursuant to advertisement published in Hindustan daily dated 11.06.2011, the respondents have invited applications for appointment of Adhoc/ Part Time Lecturers. The said advertisement itself was in contrary to the directions passed by this Court in CWJC No. 1732 of 2001. 5. It is further case of the petitioner that pursuant to advertisement published in Hindustan daily dated 11.06.2011, the respondents have invited applications for appointment of Adhoc/ Part Time Lecturers. The said advertisement itself was in contrary to the directions passed by this Court in CWJC No. 1732 of 2001. Petitioner and others filed W.P.(S) No. 3483 of 2011, which was disposed of vide order dated 27.07.2011 by which Clause -7 of the said advertisement has been held to be arbitrary and as such the same was quashed vide order dated 27.07.2011 and a direction was issued by this Court that those who were working as part time lecturers, they cannot be forced to appear in the test for selection of part time Lecturer in the same subject and they can be replaced only upon appointment of regular lecturers. The appeal preferred by the State vide L.P.A. No. 317 of 2011 also stood dismissed vide order dated 01.05.2012 and thereafter the said advertisement for appointment of part time lecturers stood cancelled. Thereafter, the Honorarium/ salary of the petitioner was released from February, 2013 to November, 2013. However, the Principal Incharge of Govt. Polytechnic, Dumka, just two days prior to his retirement, vide letter no. 150, dated 28.06.2014, terminated the petitioner from service. Thereafter, the Incharge Principal, Govt. Polytechnic, Dumka, vide letter dated 23.08.2014 and letter no. 486, dated 30.09.2014, requested the Under Secretary, Department of Science and Technology, Govt. of Jharkhand for approval of the Department for allowing petitioner to work on the post he was holding. 6. Being aggrieved, petitioner filed Contempt Case (Civil) No. 651 of 2015 enclosing the impugned order dated 28.06.2014 since the same was against the order passed in CWJC No. 1732 of 2001 as well as the order dated 27.07.2011 in W.P.(S) No. 3483 of 2011 and the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, the said contempt was dropped giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the said order in writ proceeding and as such he has preferred instant writ petition. 7. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assisted by Mr. Amit Sinha and Mr. Shubham Mayank, submits that the impugned order has been passed by the then Principal Incharge just two days before his retirement in hot haste which shows malice carrying against the petitioner. 7. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assisted by Mr. Amit Sinha and Mr. Shubham Mayank, submits that the impugned order has been passed by the then Principal Incharge just two days before his retirement in hot haste which shows malice carrying against the petitioner. Petitioner has been singled out whereas the persons appointed on part time basis in between the years 2011 to 2015, all have been allowed to continue in service and they are still continuing. Petitioner has been removed from the service with malafide intention just to avoid contempt proceeding in the cases filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel draws attention of this Court towards Annexure-15 Series and submits that he has obtained information under the provisions of RTI Act, 2005 about the list of teachers working on part time basis in Govt. Polytechnic, Dumka. Learned counsel further argues that though petitioner was rendering his service for a long time but only in order to adjust one Menashi Marandi, such a situation has been created. Said Menasi Marandi has now been transferred from State Polytechnic, Dumka to State Polytechnic, Sahebganj vide Notification dated 05.07.2019. Learned counsel further argues that the Principal Incharge in a Govt. Polytechnic, Dumka had no authority or jurisdiction to terminate services of the petitioner and surprisingly the said termination has been made with retrospective effect i.e. with effect from the year 1995 itself. Learned counsel further argues that contention of the respondents that only after recommendations of Jharkhand Public Service Commission, the appointment of Lecturer can be done is totally misconceived rather the scheme of regularization is totally applicable and petitioner may be accommodated under the said scheme. Post of Lecturer in the Government Polytechnic is not a civil post for the purpose of Article 320 of the Constitution of India and as such the same is not excluded under the Scheme of regularization. 8. Drawing attention of this Court towards Supplementary affidavit dated 29.07.2019, learned counsel submits that pursuant to letter issued vide memo no. 327, dated 11.09.1995, petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in the Department of Electrical Engineering, Four men selection committee was constituted and on the recommendations of said Committee, the petitioner was appointed against the vacant post of Assistant Professor, Electrical Branch and was posted against the post in Electrical Branch and was not concerned with the Department of Electronics. 327, dated 11.09.1995, petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in the Department of Electrical Engineering, Four men selection committee was constituted and on the recommendations of said Committee, the petitioner was appointed against the vacant post of Assistant Professor, Electrical Branch and was posted against the post in Electrical Branch and was not concerned with the Department of Electronics. The said contention of the petitioner is further strengthen from Annexure-21 to the said supplementary affidavit whereby the respondents have floated advertisement for appointment to the post of part time Lecturer in the department of Electrical Engineering as well as in the Department of Electronics. 9. Learned counsel further argues that petitioner has worked for more than 20 years without any complaint and as such respondents are duty bound to regularize his services in view of various decisions passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The respondent authorities cannot take a different plea than what has already been settled by the Court. Petitioner has been made to suffer and even after various rounds of litigation, respondents have not taken any decision in the matter and the impugned order has been passed in contravention to the order and direction passed by this Court earlier. Placing heavy reliance upon the Judgment passed in the case of Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi and others Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (1991) 1 SCC 212 learned counsel submits that it has clearly been held by the Hon’ble Court that even in the matters of contractual appointments also, the same is subject to purview of judicial review in order to provide an effective check against arbitrariness and abuse of powers. 10. Learned counsel further emphatically argues that till date no permanent appointment has been made and only on the basis of part time appointments, the education is being imparted which is evident from the information given by the Principal, State Polytechnic, Dumka vide letter no. 262, dated 18.02.2021 and letter no. 201, dated 06.11.2020 (Annexures-26 and 27 to the supplementary affidavit). In spite of posts lying vacant, petitioner is not being allowed/ regularized against the vacant and sanctioned post. 11. Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, AC to learned GP-I appearing on behalf of the State submits that the petitioner was engaged on part time basis in absence of regular lecturer in the department on a consolidated amount. In spite of posts lying vacant, petitioner is not being allowed/ regularized against the vacant and sanctioned post. 11. Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, AC to learned GP-I appearing on behalf of the State submits that the petitioner was engaged on part time basis in absence of regular lecturer in the department on a consolidated amount. The post of Lecturer is a Gazetted post and the appointment can be made by issuance of advertisement and through proper scrutiny by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission and as such the Department or the College has no authority to regularize service of the petitioner. It is merely a stop gap arrangement in order to facilitate education to the students. The condition enumerated in the said adhoc appointment clearly speaks that in case of regular appointment, such appointment on adhoc or contractual basis shall stood cancelled. Petitioner has no right to claim for regularization. Petitioner was not removed from the service in light of order passed earlier whereby direction was passed that adhoc arrangement cannot be replaced by adhoc or temporary arrangement and it can be replaced by regular appointment. After transfer of Menasi Marandi, Lecturer (Electronics) from Government Women Polytechnic, Ranchi to Government Polytechnic, Dumka the situation changed and impugned order was issued in view of the fact that petitioner’s service as a part time lecturer was no more required. There was no sanctioned post for part time lecturer in Dumka Polytechnic and petitioner cannot be regularized in light of Notification no. 1348, dated 13.02.2015. Further in absence of sanctioned post in Electronic Engineering Department, petitioner was being paid honorarium from Electrical Engineering Department of Dumka Polytechnic. Petitioner has not taken a single class during the periods December, 2013 to June, 2014. Learned counsel further argues that during the year 2008, regular appointments were made for appointment as a Part Time Lecturer through Jharkhand Public Service Commission but petitioner could not succeed as his name does not find place in the notification of appointment dated 22.05.2008. There is no merit in this writ petition and as such the same is fit to be dismissed. 12. There is no merit in this writ petition and as such the same is fit to be dismissed. 12. It appears that pursuant to order dated 14.01.2020, this Court had asked the respondents to file specific affidavit in view of recommendation dated 23.08.2014 clearly mentioning therein: (i) Whether any advertisement has been floated in pursuant to the order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1732 of 2001: (ii) Whether respondents have taken any steps to fill up the vacancies? In view of direction of this Court, affidavit has been filed by the respondents on 02.03.2020 clearly stating therein that vide advertisement dated 06.06.2007, the process of appointment for the post of Lecturers was initiated by the JPSC including the post of Lecturer in Electronics and Telecommunication Department. The merit list of successful candidates was published vide letter dated 10.09.2007 in which against the post of Electronics and Telecommunication, two candidates were declared successful namely Mamta Sindhu Kujur and Menasi Marandi. Subsequently, the said post occupied by the petitioner was filled up by regular appointee namely Menasi Marandi. It has further been pointed out that in view of letter no. 36, dated 17.02.2020, sent by Principal, Govt. Polytechnic, Dumka, it is confirmed that at present there is no post vacant in Electronic and Communication in the institution nor the same is required. It has further been pointed out that recently for the appointment of 80 Lecturers, the advertisement no. 43/2016 was floated and process of appointment is being carried out by the JPSC. 13. From perusal of documents brought on record and the specific averments made in the writ petition and that of the counter affidavit, certain facts are admitted and not disputed by either of the parties. There was an advertisement by the respondents dated 06.06.2007 for appointment of lecturers including that of the post of lecturer in Electrical and Telecommunication Department. It has been brought on record that two persons in Electronics and Telecommunications Department were appointed but it is not clear that whether petitioner appeared in the said process of appointment or not. However, even if he appeared and did not qualify, the question is he was allowed to continue to work as a Lecturer till the impugned order dated 28.06.2014 was passed. Meaning thereby, the respondents were in need of service of the petitioner and as such he was allowed to continue. However, even if he appeared and did not qualify, the question is he was allowed to continue to work as a Lecturer till the impugned order dated 28.06.2014 was passed. Meaning thereby, the respondents were in need of service of the petitioner and as such he was allowed to continue. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the post of Lecturer (adhoc in nature) on which petitioner was working, was for Electronics and Telecommunication Department and not of Electrical Engineering. Since respondents have come out with fresh advertisement being advertisement no. 43/2016 for appointment of 80 adhoc lecturers and not regular appointment, the said action of the respondents cannot be said to be legal neither justified in the eyes of law. 14. In catena of decisions of this Court as well as that of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it has clearly been held that the adhoc cannot be replaced by the adhoc. There is no quarrel to the legal proposition that if regular appointments are to be made, the candidates working as adhoc lecturers may be given opportunity to appear and after regular appointment, the adhocism shall be put to an end. Here it is not a case that the college in question is going to make arrangements for permanent/ regular appointment and therefore, petitioner cannot be allowed to continue rather it appears that illegally and arbitrarily the respondents have removed the petitioner from the service. Admittedly, petitioner was removed in the year 2014 itself. His case cannot be considered for regularization as he is not on the roll of the College. However, the action of the respondents in appointing adhoc lecturers in place of adhoc lecturer, cannot be said to be justified. 15. In the case of State of Haryana v. Piara Singh reported in (1992) 4 SCC 118 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “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 regularisation 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. 50. The proper course would be that each State prepares a scheme, if one is not already in vogue, for regularisation of such employees consistent with its reservation policy and if a scheme is already framed, the same may be made consistent with our observations herein so as to reduce avoidable litigation in this behalf. If and when such person is regularised he should be placed immediately below the last regularly appointed employee in that category, class or service, as the case may be. 51. If and when such person is regularised he should be placed immediately below the last regularly appointed employee in that category, class or service, as the case may be. 51. So far as the work-charged employees and casual labour are concerned, the effort must be to regularise them as far as possible and as early as possible subject to their fulfilling the qualifications, if any, prescribed for the post and subject also to availability of work. If a casual labourer is continued for a fairly long spell — say two or three years — a presumption may arise that there is regular need for his services. In such a situation, it becomes obligatory for the authority concerned to examine the feasibility of his regularisation. While doing so, the authorities ought to adopt a positive approach coupled with an empathy for the person. As has been repeatedly stressed by this Court, security of tenure is necessary for an employee to give his best to the job. In this behalf, we do commend the orders of the Government of Haryana (contained in its letter dated April 6, 1990 referred to hereinbefore) both in relation to work-charged employees as well as casual labour.” 16. Further, para-3 of the Judgment passed in the case of Hargurpratap Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2007) 13 SCC 292 is relevant to be quoted hereunder: “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. 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.” 17. This Court after taking into consideration the logical sequitur and legal proposition laid down in the aforementioned cases, rendered Judgment in the case of Babita Kumari and others passed in W.P.(S) No. 4682 of 2021, which has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 438 of 2022, wherein it has clearly been held that the rejection of the case of the petitioners for regularization will not come in the way of taking a decision in the case of the petitioners for extension of their contract period till a decision is being taken for 17 regular appointment and as such, impugned order dated 26.10.2021 (Annexure-18) is not tenable in the eyes of law and fit to be quashed and set aside as the same has been issued without taking into consideration the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in (2018) 8 SCC 238 , wherein it has been held that if a strict and literal interpretation, forgetting the spirit of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753], is to be taken into consideration then no irregularly appointed employee of the State of Jharkhand could ever be regularised since that State came into existence only on 15-11-2000 and the cut-off date was fixed as 10-4-2006. In other words, in this manner the pernicious practice of indefinitely continuing irregularly appointed employees would be perpetuated contrary to the intent of the Constitution Bench. 18. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Narinder Singh Ahuja & Ors. Vs. the Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare & Ors., reported in (2014) 146 DRJ 167 , has held as under:- “15. 18. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Narinder Singh Ahuja & Ors. Vs. the Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare & Ors., reported in (2014) 146 DRJ 167 , has held as under:- “15. In the opinion of this Court, since the respondents nowhere dispute that there is need for the performance of the work that the petitioners were discharging all along and there is also no dispute that the project and funding (for the project) would continue till 2017, the decision to discontinue the petitioners’ engagement is based only on the policy to outsource the contractual employment to a third party. The petitioners are not insisting on regularization, given the nature of the employment or engagement, which is project based. However apart from the decision to outsource” engagement of contract employment to a third agency, there is no rationale to discontinue the petitioners’ contracts. The justification that the employees engaged through the contractor are paid lower wages is arbitrary, because the “outsourced” or outsourcing agency would have to be paid its service charges. The lower wages paid, therefore, is, in effect, because of the charges/fees paid to the contractor/outsourced agency. The facts of this case clearly reveal that even though the work is to be performed by contractual employees, the reason for discontinuance of the petitioners employment is not their replacement with regular appointees, but instead, with another set of contractual employees. The state/respondents cannot, in the circumstances of this case, say that discontinuance of such employment cannot be gone into by the Court because the petitioners were aware that their contracts ended.” 19. Similar issue fell for consideration before this Court also in case of Pankaj Kumar & Anr. Vs. The State of Jharkhand in W.P.(S) No.6524 of 2017 and this Court vide order dated 18.01.2018 reiterated the same as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 20. Earlier this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Saha and others Vs. State of Jharkhand and others passed in W.P.(S) No. 3483 of 2011 and further in the case of Gajendra Kumar Singh and others Vs. Meera Kumar and others passed in L.P.A. No. 317 of 2021 has reiterated the same view. 21. In view of aforesaid legal proposition, this Court is of the view that stand of the respondents is totally illegal, unjustified and dehors the rule. Meera Kumar and others passed in L.P.A. No. 317 of 2021 has reiterated the same view. 21. In view of aforesaid legal proposition, this Court is of the view that stand of the respondents is totally illegal, unjustified and dehors the rule. If the respondents are taking initiative to fill up the posts by adhoc appointees, they are not permitted to do so. If regular appointments are being made, petitioner is at liberty to apply for the same. However, the respondents shall consider his case, if there is no other legal impediments. 22. Since petitioner has already been removed, he is directed to file representation before the respondent no. 3 within a period of six weeks. On receipt of such representation along with a copy of this order, the respondent no. 3 is directed to consider the same taking into consideration that the adhoc employees cannot be replaced by another set of adhoc employees and petitioner is directed to be allowed to continue to work as an adhoc employee in the said College till regular appointments are made. The entire exercise is directed to be completed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 23. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.