IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.371 of 2008 RAKESH KUMAR & ORS Versus BABASAHEB BHIMRAO AMBEDKAR BIH ----------- 02 14.05.2008 Petitioners were appointed by Professor-in-charge M.S. College, Motihari by vide appointment letter 15.07.2006. This letter appointed the persons as part time lecturers to be paid on lecture basis subject to a maximum of Rs. 4950 per month till permanent appointments are made after proper advertisement. It is stated that they continue as such as part time law lecturers till suddenly they have been visited by the impugned letter as contained in Annexure-3 dated 28.11.2007 issued by the Registrar under the orders of the Vice-Chancellor. The said letter is addressed to the Principal of M.S. College, Motihari, where the petitioners were so appointed. It says that the Vice-Chancellor has been pleased to order to immediately cancel appointment of teachers of the law faculty of the College, which appointments were made by the Principal of the College or the in-charge of law faculty. It was further directed that the panel of persons for taking classes in law faculty be made and sent to the University for their engagement in light of the Governor’s Secretariat as well as the State Government to be engaged as guest teachers. Dr. Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that before the appointment of petitioners was terminated they were entitled to a notice in this regard and notice not having been issued. The termination is ipso facto void. Secondly, he submits that in any case as part time law lecturers are now to be replaced by guest teachers on the same terms and conditions they ought to be considered and lastly that so far as the period for which they had worked they are entitled to remuneration on the basis of the engagement as made. Having considered the matter, in my view, the first contention cannot be accepted. The very appointment letter clearly shows that petitioners appointment were purely ad hoc, temporary and stop gap arrangement which had no permanency whatsoever they are to be paid on lecture basis. The second is that they have been appointed either by the Principal/Professor- in-charge or under his authority which is not permissible under the University law. It is, therefore, a procedure of appointment not sanctioned by law at all. That being so, considering the nature of appointment and the manner of appointment the petitioners have no right to be heard before their employment is terminated. Principle of natural justice will not come into play in such a situation. So far as the second prayer is concerned, in my view, once the head of the institution considered the petitioners to be qualified and competent to be part time lecturers in the law faculty. He would be kept in mind while preparing the panel to be said to the Vice-Chancellor as per orders of the Chancellor’s, if there is nothing adverse against any of the petitioners. So far as, the third prayer is concerned, in my view, the prayer has to be allowed and direction has to be issued for the period petitioners have worked in proportion to the lectures given by them on being satisfying about its bona fide. The Principal of the College would ensure payment to the petitioners, as it is well established that no services rendered is gratuitous. The law faculty of M.S. College, which is a constituent College, functioned only because of the petitioners being there. This writ application is, thus, disposed of in the terms above. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J.)