1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER 1. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5238/2009 Ms.Savita Samriya V.State and others 2. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2711/2009 Jagdish Prasad & ors.V.State & others 3. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5237/2009 Rupnarayan Aswal & ors.V.State & ors. 4. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5218/2009 Seema Ranawat V.State and others 5. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5219/2009 Son Kunwar Handa V.State and others 6. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5220/2009 Ms.Harsha Madan V.State and others 7. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5221/2009 Abha Singh V. State and others 8. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5222/2009 Alka Sharma V.State of Raj. & ors. 9. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5223/2009 Ms.Dr.Jolly Bhandari V.State & others 10. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5217/2009 Shailja Jajanwara V.State and others 11. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3877/2009 Murari Lal Khatik V.State and others 12. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5162/2009 Dr.Vinod Kumar Sharma & ors.V.State 13. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5239/2009 Ms.Pooja Bhati V.State and others 14. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5240/2009 Jitendra Singh & ors.V.State and ors. 15. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2677/2009 Shiv Lal Bairwa & ors.V.State & ors. 2 16. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2859/2009 Vineeta Nirban V.State and others 17. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3169/2009 Kedar Prasad Meena V.State and others 18. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2524/2009 Mukesh Kumar & ors.V.State and others 19. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2790/2009 Surendra Kumar V. State and others 20. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3139/2009 Miss Kamini Raria V.State and ors. 21. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2333/2009 Dr.Vinod Sharma & ors.V.State & ors. 22. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2807/2009 Ram Prasad V.State and others 23. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2812/2009 Virendra Goyal & ors.V.State & ors. 24. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2951/2009 Taru Surana V.State and others 25. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2808/2009 Asha Pandey & ors.V.State and others 26. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2926/2009 Rajesh Mehra & ors.V.State and others 27. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2902/2009 Dr.(Smt.)Minakshi Bohra V.State & ors. 28. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2919/2009 Sunil Kumar Sharma V.State and others 29. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2616/2009 Dinesh Parihar V.State and others. 30. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3292/2009 Rachna Mathi V.State of Raj. & ors. 31. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3293/2009 Amita Mali and others V.State & ors. 32. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6134/2009 Vinod Kumar Bhojak V.State and others 3 Date of order ::: May 22,2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PREM SHANKER ASOPA Mr.Ashok Gaur, Mr.Praveen Sharma, Mr.V.S.Chauhan, Mr.Dayanand Yadav,Mr.Sunil Kumar Jain,Mr.P.C.Sharma, Mr.Mahendra Sharma, Mr.Chain Singh Rathore, Mr.Harsh Saini, Mr.S.Vyas, Mr.D.K.Dixit, Mr.R.P.Vijay and Ms.Soniya Shandilya, for the petitioners Mr.Dinesh Yadav, Addl.AG for the State REPORTABLE BY THE COURT (1) Since common question of facts and law are involved in these cases, relating to the termination of the services of the petitioners who were appointed as substitutes under the Shikshak Adheyatavriti Yojna which were given to them on purely contractual temporary basis as per the circular dated 4.7.2008, therefore, all the cases which have been reserved on different dates after hearing arguments, clubbed together and are being decided by this common order. (2) The facts of SBCWP No.5238/2009 are taken for deciding these writ petitions. (3) On 4.7.2008, the State Government issued a circular for implementing the Shikshak Adhyovriti Yojna for being appointed on the post of School Lecturers purely on contractual temporary basis in place of the 4 teachers who were availing academic leave. As per Point No.1 in the directions for implementation of the Scheme, the Selection Committee was constituted including subject expert and Secretary of the College Development Society or its representative,and after scrutinising the applications considering their qualifications as per Schedule `A' the suitability was to be decided as per Schedule `B'. Point No.3 of the aforesaid Policy is for execution of the undertaking on Rs.10/- non-judicial stamp as prescribed in Schedule `C' and further, Point No.5 relates to the discharge of the substitute(s) on completion of the prescribed period. It is stated in the writ petitin that the teachers are still on academic leave but despite that, the petitioners have been discharged from the services during the continuation of the academic session keeping in view the undertaking given by them which is arbitrary. (4) In reply, the Government has justified their action on the basis of circular. On the issue of non-availability of teachers who 5 had gone for academic leave no specific reply has been filed and there is no specific denial of the fact that no post of College Lecturer will remain vacant on 1.7.2009. (5) The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that now the respondents will again appoint substitutes from 1.7.2009. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the controversy raised in these writ petitions is covered by the controversy raised in the case of Vidhyarthi Mitras regarding appointment of Teachers in primary and upper primary/secondary schools, except the point of undertaking and on undertaking, submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that there cannot be any estoppel against the fundamental/statutory rights and further, furnishing of the undertaking is to be viewed from the angle that the respondents were having upper hand over the hand of the petitioners therfore, there was no equal bargaining and it cannot be said to be undertaking given free of consent and in this connection, reliance has been placed on a judgment of the Supreme 6 Court in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited and another V. Brojo Nath Ganguly and another (1986) 3 SCC 156). (6) Mr.Yadav, Addl.Advocate General submits that having given undertaking the petitioners are estopped from challenging the termination of their services and the undertaking is not opposed to the public policy. He placed reliance on State of Rajasthan and others V. Basant Nahata (2005) 12 SCC 77), and the judgment dated 5.5.2009 of this Court in Anil Kumar Kothari V.State and others (SBCWP No. 4276/2008). (7) I have gone through record of the writ petitions and further considered the rival submission of counsel for the parties. (8) Before proceeding further, it is useful to quote the relevant portion of the circular dated 4.7.2008 which is as under: "काया[लय आयुÈ त, कालेज ͧश¢ा, राजè थान, जयपुर Đमांक: एफ 20( टȣ.आर.एफ.)लेखा/आकाͧश/भीलवाड़ा/2003/109 Ǒदनांक: 4.07.2008 Ĥाचाय[, यू.जी.सी.से सà बÛ ि◌धत, समè त महाͪवƭालय, राजè थान ͪवषय:-ͧश¢क अÚ यावृǓत योजना के अÛ तग[त अदादमी अवकाश पर गये å याÉ याताओं के ǐरÈ त पदɉ पर " संͪवदा के आधार पर " ǓनयुिÈ त हेतु । (emphasis supplied) संदभ[: आयुÈ तालय के पǐरपğ Đमांक एफ 20(टȣ.आर.एफ.) 7 लेखा/आकाͧश/2005/783 Ǒदनांक 27.9.06 एवं यू.जी.सी. भोपाल का पǐरपğ Đमांक सी.आर.ओ./ सी.एÏ यू. 2004-05 Ǒदनांक माच[,2006 राजकȧय महाͪवƭालयɉ मɅ ͧश¢क अÚ येतावृǓत योजना के अÛ तग[त अकादमी अवकाश पर गये å याÉ याताओं से हुए ǐरÈ त पदɉ पर ता× कालȣन पूǓत[ हेतु " संͪवदा के आधार पर " पूण[तया अè थाई तौर पर , Ǔनधा[ǐरत आयु सीमा मɅ, ͪवæ वͪवƭालय अनुदान आयोग Ʈारा Ǔनधा[ǐरत शै¢ͨणक योÊ यता रखने वाले अß याͬथ[यɉ को, यू.जी.सी. Ʈारा Ǔनधा[ǐरत Û यूनतम वेतन राͧश Ǿपये 8000/- एवं इस पर ͧमलने वाले अÛ य भ× त े (जैसे डी.ए., डी.पी., एच.आर.ए., सी.सी.ए. इ× याǑद) पर Ĥ× येक शै¢ͨणक सğ के Ĥथम काय[ Ǒदवस से ǓनयुÈ त ͩकया जाकर शै¢ͨणक सğ के अंǓतम काय[ Ǒदवस तक तथा संबंͬधत å याÉ याताओं के ͧश¢क अÚ येतावृǓत योजना से लौटने तक जो भी पूव[तम हो के ͧलए अÚ यापन काय[ सुचाǾ Ǿप से करवाने हेतु आपको अͬधकृत ͩकया जाता है। योजना कȧ ͩĐयािÛ वǓत हेतु Ǔनदȶश 1. आपके महाͪवƭालय मɅ ͧश¢क अÚ येतावृǓत योजना के कारण यǑद कोई å याÉ याता का पद ǐरÈ त हुआ हो तो उस पर "संͪवदा के आधार पर" पूण[तया अè थाई आधार पर ǓनयुिÈ त हेतु Ĥाचाय[ कȧ अÚ य¢ता मɅ एक चयन सͧमǓत बनाई जावे, िजसमɅ एक ͪवषय ͪवशेष£ एवं सà बिÛ धत महाͪवƭालय कȧ ͪवकास सͧमǓत का सͬचव या उसका एक ĤǓतǓनͬध हो। 2. ͪवæ वͪवƭालय अनुदान आयोग Ʈारा Ǔनधा[ǐरत शै¢ͨणक योÊ यता रखने वाले अß यथȸ को हȣ å याÉ याता पद पर ǓनयुिÈ त ͩकया जावे। Ǔनधा[ǐरत शै¢ͨणक योÊ यता कȧ ĤǓत पǐरͧशç ठ - " अ " एवं " अ - ◌ा " योÊ याता सूची मɅ वǐरयता के मानदÖ ड , आयु सीमा पǐरͧशç ठ - " ब " पर उपलÞ ध हɇ। 3. å याÉ यता पद हेतु योÊ य आवेदकɉ से ǓनयुिÈ त से पूव[ ͧलͨखत मɅ Ǔनधा[ǐरत पǐरͧशç ठ- "स" अनुसार 10/- Ǿपये के नॉन Ï यूͫडͧशल पेपर पर अÖ डरटेͩकंग ͧलया जावे। (emphasis supplied) 4. Ĥ× येक शै¢ͨणक सğ के ͧलए Ǒदनांक 10 जून तक ͪव£िÜ त जारȣ कर Ǒदनांक 25 जून तक योÊ यताधारȣ अß यͬथ[यɉ से आवेदन पğ ĤाÜ त करɅ एवं ĤाÜ त आवेदन पğɉ का è ĐȧǓनंग कर, Ĥ× येक शै¢ͨणक सğ के Ĥथम काय[ Ǒदवस से ǓनयुÈ त ͩकया जा कर अÚ यापन काय[ करवाया जाना सुǓनिæ चत करɅ। यǑद कोई आवेदक Ĥ× येक शै¢ͨणक सğ के Ĥथम काय[ Ǒदवस को अÚ यापन काय[ के ͧलए उपिè थत नहȣं होता है तो उसके è थान वरȣयता Đम मɅ दूसरे आवेदक को अÚ यापन करवाने का अवसर Ĥदान कर Ǒदया जावɅ। वत[मान सğ के ͧलए अͪवलà ब ͪव£Ü ि◌त जारȣ कर अÚ यापन कȧ å यवè था शीē करɅ। 5. Ǔनधा[ǐरत अवͬध के पæ चात् आवेदक को काय[मुÈ त कर इस काया[लय को सूͬचत ͩकया जावे।..." (emphasis supplied) (9) The undertaking given by the candidate is as under: " अÖ डरटेͩकंग का ĤाǾप आज Ǒदनांक 2.1.09 को यह संͪवदा पर राÏ य सरकार कȧ ओर से Ĥाचाय[ एम.एस. कॉलेज भरतपुर का Ĥाथȸ जगदȣश Ĥसाद पुğ Įी नारायन ͧसंह जाǓत- जाटव Ēाम पोè ट हाटमाडी तहसील Ǿपवास िजला भरतपुर राज. के माÚ यम नीचे ͧलखे गये ͪववरण एवं शतɟ के अनुसार मɅ संͪवदा के आधार पर अÚ यापन å यवè था हेतु Ǔनç पाǑदत ͩकया जाता है। 8 1- काय[- Ĥाथȸ को ĤǓतमाह ͧश¢ण काय[ Ĥाचाय[ के Ǔनदȶशन के अनुसार सà पÛ न करना होगा। 2-अवंटन- Ĥाथȸ को संͪवदा के आधार पर अÚ यापन å यवè था राज.सेवा लोक आयोग से चयǓनत अß यथȸ के काय[ भार Ēहण करने कȧ Ǔतͬथ अथवा आगामी 28.2.09 कȧ अवͬध इनमɅ से जो भी पूव[ततम होने के ͧलये होगी। 3- पाǐरĮͧमक 3-1 Ĥाथȸ को 7950 ĤǓतमाह देय होगा Ĥाथȸ को ͩकसी भी Ĥकार का अÛ य का पाǐरĮͧमक याğा भ× ता या अÛ य भ× ते पǐरलाभ देय नहȣं होगɅ। 3-2 माह के आंͧशक समय कȧ ǓनयुिÈ त कȧ ǓनयुिÈ त कȧ दशा मɅ Ĥाथȸ को भुगतान माह कȧ 30 Ǒदन मानते हुए Ǒदया जावेगा। 4- अÚ यापन å यवè था कȧ समािÜ त 4-1 Ĥाथȸ कȧ संͪवदा के आधार पर å यवè था राज. लोक सेवा आयोग से चयǓनत अß यथȸ के काय[Ēहण करने कȧ Ǔतͬथ अथवा आगामी 28.2.09 तक कȧ अवͬध इनमɅ से जो भी पूव[ततम होने के ͧलए होगी। 4-2 संͪवदा के आधार पर ǓनयुÈ त ͩकये गये अß यथȸ का काय[ सÛ तोषजनक नहȣं पाये जाने पर उसकȧ ǓनयुिÈ त Ĥाचाय[ Ʈारा समाÜ त कȧ जा सकेगी। 4-3 यǑद Ĥाथȸ Ʈारा Ĥेͪषत कोई भी सूचना ͩकसी भी समय अस× य पाई गई तो संͪवदा के आधार पर कȧ गई ǓनयुिÈ त त× काल समाÜ त कर दȣ जावेगी तथा गलत सूचना Ĥè तुत करने के ͧलए अͪवलà ब Ĥाथȸ के ͪवǾƨ कानूनी काय[वाहȣ कȧ जा सकेगी। 5- Ĥाथȸ संͪवदा के आधार पर अपनी सेवा कȧ ǓनरÛ तरता ǓनयुिÈ त मɅ Ĥाथͧमकता अÚ यापन मɅ ǓनयुिÈ त के ͧलये कोई वाद कारण नहȣं कर सकेगा। Ĥाथȸ Ʈारा यह संͪवदा è वè थͬच× त एवं è वतंğ इÍ छा एवं ǒबना ͩकसी दबाव व पूण[ होश हवास मɅ ǒबना नशे पते के रहते हुये सà पाǑदत कȧ गई है।" (emphasis supplied) (10)Now, I proceed to examine the submissions raised by the counsel for the parties. (11)The case of State of Rajasthan V. Basant Nahata (supra) is relating to Sec. 22 as inserted vide Rajasthan Amendment Act (16 of 1976) in Registration Act, 1908 regarding stamp duty in case of agreement of sale 9 where possession has been delivered or power of attorney where right of transfer has been given. In the said case, the amendment was also challenged on the ground that the same was opposed to the public policy. The Supreme Court while dealing with the said issue from paras 41 to 47 has laid down parameter of cases of contract which offended public policy. Three of them have been said to be expedient rather than un- principled. Paras 45 and 47 of Basant Nahata (supra) are as under: “45.The said phraseology came up for consideration before this Court in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited and Another vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly where a note of caution has been sounded that it being a 'very unruly horse', once when gets astride one does not know how far it would carry him. The question as to whether the statement as regard the validity of a contract on the ground that it is opposed to public policy must normally be viewed within the parameters fixed therefor by longstanding authorities or precedents but in deciding a case it may not be covered by such authorities and lacking precedents, the preamble of the Constitution or the principles underlying the fundamental rights and the Directive Principles in our Constitution can be taken recourse to. This Court in Rattan Chand Hira Chand vs. Askar Nawaz Jung quoted the following from Prof. Winfield's Article "Public Policy in the English Common Law": (SCC p.77, para 18) (emphasis supplied) "Some judges appear to have thought it [the unruly horse of public policy] more like a tiger, and refused to mount it at all, perhaps because they feared the fate of the young lady of Riga. Others have regarded it like Balaam's ass which would carry its rider nowhere. But none, at any rate at the present day, has looked upon it 10 as a Pegasus that might soar beyond the momentary needs of the community." It was further observed:(SCC pp.77-78, para 18) "All courts have at one time or the other felt the need to bridge the gap between what is and what is intended to be. The courts cannot in such circumstances shirk from their duty and refuse to fill the gap. In performing this duty they do not foist upon the society their value judgments. They respect and accept the prevailing values, and do what is expected of them. The courts will, on the other hand, fail in their duty if they do not rise to the occasion but approve helplessly of an interpretation of a statute or a document or of an action of an individual which is certain to subvert the societal goals and endanger the public good." 47.In Cheshire, Fifoot & Furmston in their Law of Contract, 14th Edn.at p.407 states: "Assuming, then, that contracts vitiated by some improper element must be divided into two classes, how are the more serious examples of 'illegality' at common law to be distinguished from the less serious? Which of the contracts that have been frowned upon by the courts are so patently reprehensible - so obviously contrary to public policy - that they must be peremptorily styled illegal? Judicial authority is lacking, but it is submitted that the epithet 'illegal' may aptly and correctly be applied to the following six types of contract: - A contract to commit a crime, a tort or a fraud on a third party. - A contract that is sexually immoral. - A contract to the prejudice of the public safety. 11 - A contract prejudicial to the administration of justice. (emphasis supplied) - A contract that tends to corruption in public life. - A contract to defraud the revenue. There remain three types of contract which offend 'public policy', but which are inexpedient rather than un- principled. - A contract to oust the jurisdiction of the court. (emphasis supplied) - A contract that tends to prejudice the status of marriage. - A contract in restraint of trade." (12) As regards the judgment in Anil Kumar Kothari V.State (supra), this Court had occasion to consider the same in SBCWP No.4652/2009 and after consideration, it was held that the same is distinguishable on facts and it was held as under: “(28) With due respect to the aforesaid judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the facts and circumstances as well as the issues raised in these writ petitions were not raised in the writ petition of Anil Kumar Kothari, therefore, there was no decision by the co-ordinate Bench on the present issues which are as follows: (i)There is no restriction in the Rules and to meet out such exceptional exigency, the policy could be issued and implemented in the interest of school education which includes students and 12 the appointment of Teachers on contract basis; (ii)There was no challenge to the policy before the Co-ordinate Bench; otherwise also, the respondents cannot be allowed to challenge their own policy; (iii)The judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan V.Anil Kumar Singh (supra) has not been discussed in the aforesaid case by the co- ordinate Bench. (29) I am conscious of the view that another co- ordinate Bench in Anil Kumar Kothari (supra) held the contractual appointment dehors the Rules but the issue of `exceptional exigency' was not considered to implement the Scheme and further I have to answer the aforesaid three legal issues which are not of minor nature and the same have been debated and discussed in these cases, in the light of the judgments of the Supreme Court including that of the Constitution Bench in Uma Devi (3) wherein effect of Piara Singh (supra) has not been diluted of substituting ad hoc employee by another ad hoc employee, therefore on facts and law, the present cases are distinguishable. (emphasis supplied) (30) In my view, paras 1 and 2 of the judgment in Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others V. Anil Kumar Singh and others(supra) will apply in the facts and circumstances of the present cases and they are as follows: “1.The employer Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan is in appeal against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No.782 of 1995 which was upheld in appeal by the Division Bench. The respondents had been appointed on contractual basis and just before the expiry of the contractual period, they approached the High Court with the prayer that 13 their services should not be terminated until the posts are filled up by a process of regular recruitment. The learned Single Judge by his order dated 6.4.1995 disposed of the writ petition following an earlier judgment of said Court in S.P.Upadhyay case directing that the writ petitioners should be allowed to continue till the posts are filled up by process of regular recruitment, and those petitioners should be allowed to compete with other candidates if they apply for selection and if they are otherwise not disqualified. The High Court also took additional care by indicating that the writ petitioners cannot claim any additional advantage by virtue of their experience by working for the contractual period. In the aforesaid premises, we d not find any infirmity with the said judgment of the High Court to be interfered with by this Court. The expression `if they are otherwise not disqualified' would obviously mean they must have the necessary qualifications,as required, under the relevant rules for being appointed as a teacher and then they ave to compete along with others for adjudication of their merit for being appointed. The apprehension of the employer that the impugned judgment directs condonation of the age is wholly unfounded. (emphasis supplied) 2. In the aforesaid premises, we do not find any justification for interference with the direction given by the High Court. Civil Appeals are accordingly dismissed.” (emphasis supplied) (31) As discussed above, the issue of substitution of ad hoc employee can be summed up that direction in Para 46 of State of Haryana V. Piara Singh (supra) (three Judges' Bench) was considered by the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka V.Uma Devi (3) (supra)(five Judges' Bench) in paras 21, 27, 28, 29 but the effect that ad hoc employee cannot be substituted by another ad hoc employee has not been diluted. Only in para 26, para 50 of Piara Singh (supra) of framing scheme of regularisation/absorption has been held to 14 be inconsistent with para 45. (32) In Official Liquidator V.Dayanand and others (2008) 10 SCC 1), the judgment in State of Haryana V.Piara Singh (supra) was considered in paras 18, 43, 46 and 48 but in the said judgment, the issue was relating to the regularisation and absorption, therefore, no finding was given on the issue of replacing ad hoc employee by another ad hoc employee. The other findings have been referred in the aforesaid paras more particularly para 72 regarding inconsistency of Piara Singh (supra)of para 45 and 50 but not para 46 and held that scheme of regularisation/absorption can only be in accordance with the said Constitution Bench judgment in State of Karnataka V.Uma Devi(3). (33) The main question arises for consideration on merit is only whether it was open to the respondents to stick on the first and last extension during the non availability of the candidates selected by the RPSC/persons recommended by the DPC for promotion and further availability of the examination/admission work and teaching work which is to be started from the new academic session and there is no hope of selected candidates being made available. (34) A perusal of the order dated 2.6.2008 would reveal that the circular is not only for the year 2008-2009 but it has been implemented for the reason of non availability of the selected candidates from RPSC/persons selected and recommended by the DPC for promotion, and further 15 specific dates i.e. 28.2.2009 and 15.4.2009 for continuation of their appointment were fixed with the stipulation `whichever is earlier' for the reason that by that time, the candidates selected by the RPSC might be available. There is no substantial change of circumstances as the condition of non- availability of RPSC selected candidates/persons selected by the DPC still exists and the academic session is about to start for which even urgent temporary appointments are also not possible within a short span of time now left to start the next academic session. Further argument of the counsel for the State is that the services of the petitioners came to an end automatically on 15.4.2009 and there is no reason to further extend the same is also not sustainable as where the examinations are over, checking of the answer sheets is going on and even if result is declared, then the admission process for the next academic session is about to start for which also the services of the Teachers is required, therefore, the Scheme is in force, the work is available and simply invocation of the last extension is held to be arbitrary and illegal. (35) Before parting with the judgment, I would like to observe that Education is a Vacation Department as per Rule 94A RSR. The regular employee/ad hoc temporary employee may be entitled for salary of the vacations but in my view, the contract employees are not entitled for the wages of the vacation. (36) Accordingly, the writ petitions are 16 disposed of as under: I. During continuation of the work, as detailed out hereinabove, the invocation of the last extension is arbitrary and illegal;and the consequential automatic termination orders of the petitioners are set aside. II. The RPSC/DPC selected candidates /employees are still not available and next academic session is about to start; even urgent temporary appointments under Rule 28 of the Rules of 1971 are not possible due to short span of one month and a half left to start with the process of admission and academic session, therefore, as per the aims and objects of the Scheme, respondents are directed to consider the cases of the petitioners for continuation in service till regularly selected candidates from RPSC/persons selected and recommended by the DPC for promotion are made available in the light of the above observations; III. Even in case of appropriate order of continuation in service till regularly selected candidates from RPSC/DPC selected persons are available, the petitioners are not entitled for wages of the vacations, in other