Reserved Judgment IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 255 of 2003 (S/B) Dr. Pratap Singh Rana & others …………… Petitioners Versus State of Uttaranchal & others ……………. Respondents Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. J.P. Joshi, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the State. Mr. M.C. Pande, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 & 5. Coram : Hon’ble P. C. Verma, J. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Dt: 1st April, 2005. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought continuance as lecturers till the regularly selected candidates join in their places. They have further sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the Clause Nos. 2 and 3 mentioned in the Government Order dated 07.04.1998. 2) Brief facts of the case are that the service conditions of the lecturers of Kanhaiya Lal D.A.V. College, Roorkee are governed by U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, statutes of Hemvati Nandan Bahuguna University, Garhwal and Higher Education Service Commission Act, 1980. The State of Uttar Pradesh issued a Government Order dated 07.04.1998 (copy annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition) permitting the appointment of guest lecturers on honorarium in affiliated Degree and Post Graduate Colleges of the University. Condition No. 1 of said Government Order provides that persons fulfilling the conditions as per the norms of University Grants Commission shall be 2 qualified for such appointments. Condition No. 2 of the Government Order provides that in an academic session a person can be appointed as guest lecturer only for the period from 1st July to the next 30th of June. This para of the Government Order further provides that the guest lecturers on honorarium shall work till 30th June, 1999 or till the regularly selected incumbent through U.P. Higher Education Service Commission join in their places, whichever is earlier. This further provides that guest lecturers shall be appointed in a next academic session only after they are selected afresh. Condition No. 3 of the Government Order provides that the appointee under the G.O. shall submit an affidavit that such lecturers shall not claim regularization. The aforesaid last two conditions have been challenged in this writ petition. Another Government Order dated 24.09.2001 (copy annexed as Annexure – 2 to the writ petition) in continuation of the earlier G.O. dated 07.04.1998 provides that the educational qualification required as per University Grants Commission terms has been relaxed for the visiting faculties whereby it has been made clear that it shall not be necessary for their appointment to have passed the ‘NET’ examination or to pass the Ph.D degree. The third Government Order dated 12.07.2002 (copy annexed as Annexure- 3 to the writ petition) provides that the honorarium which was earlier fixed to Rs. 5,000/- per month be enhanced to Rs. 8,000/- per month to such teachers who are appointed under the said Government Orders. petitioners state that they were appointed under aforesaid Government Orders in the year 2002-2003 and admit that they did filed affidavits in pursuance to condition no. 3 of the G.O. dated 07.04.1998 as mentioned above whereby they undertook that their services will come to an end on 30.06.2003 or till the date regularly selected incumbents are appointed, whichever is earlier. Relying on the order dated 19.05.1999 passed by Allahabad High Court in W.P. No. 20830 of 1999; Dr. Shiva Nand Pandey and another Vs. State of U.P. and others and order dated 29.06.1999 passed in W.P. No. 1004 3 (S/B) of 1999; Jai Prakash Pandey Vs. Secretary, Higher Education and order dated 07.04.2000 passed in W.P. No. 1163 (S/B) of 1999; Ratna Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and others, relief as mentioned in preceding para are prayed. 3) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, in which it has been stated that the petitioners have no right of continuation as lecturers as they are bound by the terms and conditions of G.O. dated 07.04.1998. It is further stated that the petitioners have wrongly compared their case with that of the ad hoc teachers appointed under Section 16 of the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission Act, as they are not the appointee under said Act. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioners case is different from that of the petitioners, who obtained their relief in the Allahabad High Court. 4) We heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5) In the writ petition it has nowhere been stated by the petitioners that they were appointed as ad hoc teachers under Section 16 of the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission Act, which they have quoted in the writ petition. We have perused the copy of order dated 19.05.1999 (copy annexed as Annexure- 10 to the writ petition) passed in writ petition No. 20830 of 1999; order dated 29.06.1999 (copy annexed as Annexure- 11 to the writ petition) passed in writ petition No. 1004 (S/B) of 1999 and order dated 07.04.2000 (copy annexed as Annexure- 12 to the writ petition) passed in W.P. No. 1163 (S/B) of 1999 and all the three orders show that all the petitioners in said cases were appointed as lecturers on ad hoc basis. In all the said three orders, Allahabad High Court has directed continuation of petitioners services till the time regularly selected incumbent join the posts, as the said Court felt that there was no 4 justification in replacement of the petitioners (of said cases) by another set of ad hoc employees every year. 6) We have also gone through the judgment dated 10.10.1996 passed in the case of Km. Renu Tiwari and others Vs. The Director, Higher Education and others in writ petition No. 4812 of 1988 by the Allahabad High Court, in which the similar issue as being raised in this case has been discussed. In this Renu Tiwari’s case referring the Supreme Court’s judgment passed in Rabinarain Mahapatra Vs. State of Orissa and others, reported in AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1286, it has been held that the Government should not exploit the unemployed youths by introducing such ad hoc schemes. But in the said case, the per lecture payment was only rupees fifteen under the Government Order dated 22.07.1986 and that is why the Court rightly find the exploitation is being done for long period by the Government. That is not the case here. Rather, petitioners have challenged the condition Nos. 2 and 3 of Government Order dated 07.04.1998 so that they may continue till the regularly selected incumbent join the posts. 7) In view of the fact that for the appointment of the guest lecturers not only they are exempted from clearing the ‘NET’ or holding the Ph.D. Degree but also there in no age bar etc. in their cases. As such for a short period appointment of guest lecturers on the conditions mentioned in the Government Order dated 07.04.1998 cannot be said to be unjustified. However, the same cannot be said to be just for a long term period. Nor can it be said to be just and proper to change the guest lecturers every year, unless the earlier appointed guest lecturers were not performing well. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the conditions in the Government Order as such cannot be said to be illegal or unconstitutional but their use for a long period would certainly amount exploitation of the lecturers. Also, we feel that unless duly selected incumbents are appointed, the 5 visiting guest lecturers, like the petitioners, need not be replaced every year by new set of lecturers, unless the performance of the earlier appointees is not up to the mark. 8) Therefore, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and all the above mentioned referred cases, we are of the view that there is no justification in getting replaced by one set of ad hoc visiting lecturers by another set of visiting lecturers every year unless that is necessary. Therefore, we do not feel it necessary to quash the conditions and instead direct that the petitioners be permitted to continue till the regularly selected incumbents join the posts. With these observations and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) (P.C. Verma, J.) Dt. 1st April, 2005. H. Negi