CWP No. 3613 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 30.08.2011 1. CWP No. 3613 of 2011 Sarjinder Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents. 2. CWP No. 4559 of 2011 Sandeep Kaur ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents. 3. CWP No. 4581 of 2011 Rippin ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents. 4. CWP No. 5505 of 2011 Rupinder Kaur ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents. 5. CWP No. 4573 of 2011 Kannu Priya ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents. 6. CWP No. 4104 of 2011 Kamalpreet Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents. CWP No. 3613 of 2011 [2] 7. CWP No. 6600 of 2011 Neha Khanna and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents. 8. CWP No. 12553 of 2011 Neenu Garg and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents. 9. CWP No. 11320 of 2011 Pallavi Aggarwal and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents. 10. CWP No. 11573 of 2011 Sonia Chopra ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents. 11. CWP No. 5833 of 2011 Maninder Kaur and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT Present : Mr. H.C.Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner in CWP Nos. 3613, 4559, 4581, 5505, 4573, 4104, 5833, 12553, 11320, of 2011. Mr. Gurminder Singh, Advocate for petitioner in CWP No. 6600 of 2011 and for respondent No.4 in CWP Nos. 3613, 4559, 4581 5505, 4573, 4104, 12553, 11320, 11573, 5833 of 2011 CWP No. 3613 of 2011 [3] Mr. Harpal Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.5 in CWP Nos. 3613, 6600 of 2011. Mr. Amrit Paul, Advocate, for respondent No. 5 in CWP No. 12553 of 2011. Ms. Kavita Arora, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State of Punjab. **** SURYA KANT, J.(Oral) This order shall dispose of a bunch of writ petitions as the petitioners in all these cases are contractually appointed Lecturers under the 'Self Finance Scheme' evolved by the Societies established within the Government Colleges of Punjab. While some of the contractually appointed lecturers apprehend termination of their services and/or their replacement by other contractually appointed/adhoc lecturers, the others seek a mandamus for improvement in the conditions of their service including enhancement in emoluments. So far as the apprehension regarding termination of services or replacement by other contractual/adhoc lecturers, there is no serious contest between the parties as they are ad-idem that the directions issued by this Court vide paragraphs No. 2 and 3 of the order dated 18.02.2010 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 3175 of 2009 (Jatinder Pal Singh and others V. State of Punjab and others) shall hold the field. These directions read as follow:- “2) During the course of hearing one of the solitary relief pressed upon on their behalf is that they should not be replaced by another Guest Faculty and they may be allowed to continue so long as their CWP No. 3613 of 2011 [4] services are required. 3) Learned State Counsel, on instructions, states that subject to fulfillment of eligibility and availability of work, the petitioners shall be allowed to work as Guest Faculty.” It is stated by learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners shall be allowed to continue to serve as per the present arrangement till their services are required by the respective Societies and/or found unsuitable for the reasons like:- a) lack of prescribed qualification; b) non-availability of funds; c) unsatisfactory work and conduct; d) non-availability of requisite workload. These directions shall, however, apply qua those petitioners only who have not so far obtained such orders from this Court. It is also clarified that in case the contractually appointed lecturers are relieved for want of the requisite workload and subsequently, like in the next academic session, the workload increased and justifies the engagement of contractual lecturers, in that event also, the petitioners shall have the preferential right for engagement subject to the same terms and conditions, referred to above. The aforesaid arrangement shall not allow the contractually appointed Lecturers to claim emoluments for summer vacations during which they are temporarily dis-engaged due to no CWP No. 3613 of 2011 [5] workload. Suffice it to mention that if the State Government sanctions the required posts, the petitioners shall be allowed to continue as per the present arrangement till such posts are filled in following the procedure consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. However, it shall not preclude the petitioners to seek relaxation in maximum age limit, if so permissible under the Govt. Policy/Rules. Adverting to the second relief i.e. improvement in the service conditions, there is indeed no denial to the fact that similar relief sought in Civil Writ Petition No. 3175 of 2009 (Jatinder Pal Singh and others V. State of Punjab and others) has already been declined by this Court. However, the orders passed by this Court would not preclude the State Government from taking a compassionate view and evolve a policy decision for the betterment of the condition of service of the stop gap College Teachers in the interest of the students and the teachers community. Such an arrangement may include the payment of a reasonable amount towards emoluments to the teachers like the petitioners with the aid and assistance of the State Government. With these directions and observations, all these writ petitions are disposed of. (SURYA KANT) 30.08.2011 JUDGE 'ravinder'