WP(C)/17/2002 of Agin Taboh Vs State of AP on 18 November 2003

(1) all the petitioners except petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 in WP (C) 17 (AP) 2002, namely. Miss Vineeta Dowerahn and Miss Parna sarkar belong to Arunachal Pradesh sneaquled Tribe and allt of them nota Masters degree in different subjects, all tpetitioners except two of tnem, namely, Jonny Techni and jumya Lotllen having, wever, obtained, in their post-graduation, more than 5 5% marks. The petitionersin WP (C) 781 (AP)/2001, namely, Jonny Tecni and Jumya Loltlen aforementioned nve secured 51. 5% and 50. 6% marks respectively in their post-graduation.(11) ALL the four petitioners in WP (C) No. 17 (AP) 2002 were appointed on adanobasis as lecturers in October, 1997, in different govt. Colleges in the State ofT Arunachal pradesn vide orders issued by the Secretary, department of Educatio, Govt. of Education, against sanctioned vacant posts on regular scale of pay. Tneir adanoc appointment continued to be extended from time to time until the ordr, dated Ol. ll. 98, was 1SSUed by the State respondents terminating their adnocappointment and they were all, with tne help of the same order, came to be appointed on contract basis on consolidated pay of Rs. 10,560/-pm.|(111) Same as in the case of the petitioners in WP (C) 17 (AP) 2002, the petitioners in wp (C) Nos. 392 (AP) 2001 and 413 (AP)2001, namely, Miss Sonam Wangmu anaq Shri Kiran Longcnung respectively were also appointed on aanoc basis as lLecters in Govt. Colleges in the State of Arunachal Pradesn, their dates of appointment being 23. 08. 96 and 10. ll. 97 respectively. Same as in the case of the petitioners in WP (C) 1/7 (AP) 2002, the adqnoc appointments of the petitioners in (C) Nos. 392 (AP) 2001 and 413 (AP)2001 were also terminated vide orders, datedO01. 11. 98, aforementioned issued by the State respondents and these petitione

Ss too were appointed by the same order as lecturers on contract basis on the cosolidated pay of Rs. 10,/60/ -.(iv) Before termination of the adnoc appointments of the petitioners on Ol. ll.93 as hereinabove mentioned, the Government of Arunachat Pradesn, through Arunacnal pradesh Public Service Commission (hereinafter as \the APPSC\)1ssued an advertisement, dated 17. 07. 98, inviting applications for 31 posts of Lecturers inGovt. Colleges in Arunacnat Pradesh in the regular scale of pay. The qualificatlons required for appointment as given in the advertisement was that a candidatemust have masters degree in the relevant subject with, at least, 55% marks or itS equivalent grade with good academic record and must have been awarded with Ph.D. or M. Pnit or have qualified in National Eligibility Test (in snort, net) conaucted by the UGC or State Level eligibility Test (in snort, SLET ). Tnough thepetitioners were neitner M. Pnit, nor Ph. D. and had also not qualified in NET|or SLET, they all applied in pursuance of the said advertisement. Instead of calLing the petitioners for interview/viva-voce test as per the aavertisement, tneaqdnoc appointment of the petitioners were terminated by order, dated Ol. 11. 98aforementioned and tney came to be appointed, as imdicated nereinbefore, on contract basis. The petitioners were not called for interview on the ground tnat they did not nave necessary qualification. On the refusal of tne APPSC to call thepetitioners for interview, they approached this Court with the help of their writ petitions on the ground that the petitioners did nave necessary qualificationTor appointment and they ought to have been called for the interview. However,|on tne strength of the orders passed on 08. 03. 99, 15. 03. 99 and 05. O03. 99 iWP (C) Nos 17 (AP) 2002/wp (C) 1069 of 1999 (PS), 392 (AP) 2001/wp (C) 1239 of|1999 (PS)and 413 (AP) 2001/wp (C) 950 of 1999 (PS) respectively, the petitionerswere allowed by the APPSC to appear in the interview and as per the directions|contained in the interim orders aforementioned, the results of tneir interview nave been kept in sealed covers/envelopes. WP (C) 781 (AP) 2001(v) White tne above mentioned three writ petitions, namely, WP (C) 1/7 (AP) 2002392 (AP) 2001 and 413 (AP) 2001 were pending for disposal, tne State respondentspublisned another advertisement, dated 22. 02. 2000, inviting applications for|Titling up of ll posts of Lecturers in aifferent subjects in government collegesin Arunachat Pradesn on regular scale of pay. This advertisement also prescribeaq the same qualifications as in the advertisement, dated 17. 07. 98, aTforementnea Tor appointment to tne said posts. Tne four writ petitioners in WP (C) No. 7Sl (AP) 2001 were not adnoc appointees; rather, tney were serving as lecturers 1n agifferent Government Colleges in tne State of arunachnal Pradesh on contract Sis on consolidated pay of Rs. 10,560/- vide order, dated 29. 12. 99 issued by Secretary, department iof Education, Arunacnal pradesn. When the advertisement, dated 22. 03. 2000, aforementioned was published, these petitioners too applied TOr appointment, but they too were not called for interview on the ground tnat they did not have requisite qualification. It was, at this stage, that these petit1oners too came to Court witn the nelp of their writ petition and on the strengtn of the interim direction, dated 24. 0/7. 2000, passed in their case, they too ere allowed to appear in the interview/viva-voce test and hey Nave accordingly appeared and tneir results nave been Kept in sealed cover/envelop as per the directions of this Court. WP (C) 1/7 (AP)2002. 392 (AP)2001. 413 (AP) 2001 and 781 (P) 2001

(v1) The petitioners in WP (C) Nos. 17 (AP) 2002, 392 (AP) 2001 and 413 (AP)2001claim that they possess necessary qualification Tor appointment as lecturers ingovernment colleges as per the rlevant recruitment Rules and that the UGC guideLines prescribing tne qualification are not applicable to them inasmuch as the same nave not been Legally adopted by the State government. Tne petitioners alsoclaim that their adhoc appointment was arbitrarily cancelled without giving themany notice to that effect and, hence, their services deserve to be regularized,because tney have been serving for long as Lecturers in different government coLleges, they nave experience and also Legitimate expectation. So far as the petitioners in WP (C) No. 781 (AP) 2001 are concerned, their claim 1S that their contractual appointment ougnt to nave been regularized, but the respondents have arbDitrarily not done so, tnough the petitioners are fully qualified Tor appointme t unger tne relevant recruitment Rules.

(vil) It 1S the further case of all the writ petitioners tnat the State of Arunachal Pradesh has not adopted the UGC guidelines for appointment of Lecturers, the State nas its own recruitment rule for appointment of ltecturers for GovernmenColleges and it 1s this recruitment rule, which 1s followed titlt date and undetnis recruitment rule, the respondent aughorities had, in the past, regularizedservices of a good number of persons, who were working as Lecturers. If, at all, the UGC guidelines are applicable, tnen, as per the ugc guidelines, SLET has tOo be conducted twice a year and the same snatl be conducted by an independent aency so as to facilitate the teacners without M. Phit or Ph. D. degree to pecomequalified for appointement as lecturers in the UGC scale of pay, but the stateot Aruncanat Pradesn nas not conducted the SLET. Since the State Govt. has Taillqd in its duty to conduct the SLET, the respondent authorities cannot disqualifytne petitioners after extracting service from them. Asper the ugc guidelines, reLaxation of required qualification ltike NET, M. Pnil, Pn. Detc. may be made by aking prior approval from the ugc by concerned universities. Hence, the govt. can, witn approval from the UGC, relax these requirements by considering the teaching experience of tne petitioners, wnicn 1s one of the basic criteria Tor appointment to the posts of lecturers on regular basis. Even as per the recruitment ruLe itself, the autnorities concerned may relax the requisite qualification of NET or SLET.|

(vili1) These petitioners also plead that most of the petitioners have become ovr-agedqd and they have crossed the maximum age limit for receiving any other govnment appointment. If the services of tne petitioners are not regularized, it wlLl be sneer exploitation of the petitioners. The petitioners are being discriminated by the respondent authorities by not regularizing their services, though the autnorities nave, in the past, regularized the cases of similarly situated persons on the basis of experience and educational qualification and those lecturerS are serving without any Nindrance and some of them, in fact, already stand promoted to higher posts. Eight numbers of lecturers were appointed on adhoc basison 12. O07. 91. After thelr discontinuation of service, these lecturers moved tns Court and following the orders passed in CR No. /87/92,/788/92,/710/92, they we re-appointed. In the year 1996, too anotner batch of eighteenth lecturers wereappointed in the similar way. As the present petitioners are similarly situated, their cases deserved to be considered for regularization.(1x) The total number of the sanctioned posts of the lecturers in the various coLleges of Arunacnal Pradesh is 188. The posts occupied by the Lecturers in various subjects including the lecturers on contract basis are 1/9. The recently appointedq lecturers are 4. Therefore, the total posts occupied are 1/9+4= 183. Tne X1isting vacancies are 188-183=5. As sucn, the presently selected candidates canbe appointed in those vacant posts witnout disturbing the petitioners. WP (C) No. 175 (AP) 2000 and 13 (AP)2001

(x) White tne petitioner in WP (C) No. 13 (AP) 2001 1S a member of Arunachal Praagesn scneduled Tribe, the petitioner in WP (C) No. 175 (AP) 2000 1s not a membeof any scheduled Tribe. Both these petitioners applied Tor appointment to the posts of lecturer of Government colleges in pursuance of the advertisement, dated22. 03. 2000, aforementioned. As potn these petitioners possessed the qualifications prescribed under the advertisement aforementioned, botn of tnem were interviewed and they stand selected. They nave, nowever, not been appointed on account of the fact tnat tne vacancies to accommodate tnem do not exist inasmucn as tne vacancies would become available depending upon tne decision in wp (C) Nos. 1/(AP) 2002,392 (AP) 2001, 413 (AP) 2001 and 781 (AP) 2001. The petitioners Nave|been unjustly and illegally denied the appointments, which thney nad sought for.

( 4 ) The respondents nave resisted the prayers made by the petitioners, the case of the respondents being, in brief, as under

(1) Recruitment rules exist Tor appointment of lecturers in Government Colleges.Tne lecturers, who are appointed on adhoc basis, are actually appointed on snort term basis by way of stop-gap arrangement to run the colleges as there 1S alwa

ys some delay in making selection of lecturers by the Arunacnal pradesh Public Service Commission. Tnere 1S no provision in the relevant Recruitment ruels for regularizing the services of the adanoc Lecturers or lecturers serving on contracbasis. The petitioners were appointed as Leturers on aanhoc basis subject to thcondition that such appointment witt not vest in them any right to claim regular appointment though the services of the petitioners were extended from time totime, tne ad-noc as well as contractual appointments were made witnout considerlng the question as to whether wthney were eligible for appointement as Lecturersof Govt. Colleges or not and also without due selection by tne APPSC. Hence, thequestion of appointing the petitioners by relaxing the necessary qyalificationsor tne question of regularizing their services does not arise.|(11) AS per the UGC guidelines, a candidate must be a Master Degree holder in tne relevant subject witn, at least 55% marks or the equivalent grade with a goodacaagemic records and must nave been awarded witn a ph. D. or M. Pnil up to 3l. 2. 93 or Nave qualified in the National Eligiblity Test (NET)conducted by the UGC or State Level eligibility Test (SLET) for lectureship, wnicn 1S accredited bytne UGC. AS per revised ugc's notification publisned in the year 1998, tne recuritment to the post of Lecturer shall be on the basis of merit tnrough atl Indiaadvertisement and selection by the duly constituted selection committee. In thecase of Arunachal Pradesn Govt. Colleges, it 1s the arunachalt Pradesn Public Srvice commission, which selects teachers for the govt. Colleges in accordance wltn tne relevant recruitment rules. Qualifying in the net or accredited test, sucn as, SLET, 1S essential. Tne last UGC guidelines notification was received by tne APPSC after the recruitment process was over. Tnose petitioners, who were notTound eligible in terms of the adviertisements, dated 1/7. 07. 98 and 22. 03. 2O02 aforementioned, were not called Tor the interview, tnougn they were working s lecturers on contract basis, but others, wno fulfilled the required norms, were called for the interview. The State Government has adopted and followed the UGC guidelines and norms issued from time to time for the purpose of appointment ofT Lecturers in Govt. Colleges. Tnougn Pn. D. or M. Phil 1S not a requirement foappointment as lecturers, passing of NET or SLET 1S a pre-requisite for appointment as lecturers. AS per the qualification prescribed by the UGC Tor appointment as Governmnt College Lecturers, the petitioners do not fulfitl the requirementSs, and since they do not have necesary qualification, they nave not been calledTor the interview. However, tney have been allowed to appear in the interview ontne strength of the interim directions given by this Court.(111) Neither the Government nor the appsc nas the power to relax any of the quaLifications taid down by the UGC for appointment of lecturers on regular basis ana it 1s tne UGC, which 1s the appropriate authority to prescribe the quatlifica1ons, etc. for appointment of Lecturers. Unless the petitioners possess the qual1fications prescribed by the UGC, they cannot become entitled for appointment asLecturers on regular basis.(iv) It 1S not mandatory for the State to conduct the State Eligibility test. Tne National eligibility Test 1S regularly held by Arunacnal unversity, which is tne only University in arunacnal Pradesn, and persons desirous of applying for the joo of lecturers in Colleges are Tree to sit in the National Eligibility Test,1f tney are, otherwise, eligible.(v) Some lecturers were appointed on aanoc basis during the year 1989 on being selected by a duly constituted Board formed by the Govt. vide order No. ED/nhe-45S86 dated 03. 05. 89. Tnese Government College lecturers Nad been serving on adnc basis Tor more than three years and were drawing their periodical increments ana also enjoying other benefits like LTC, earned Leave and other facilities as per rules in force, which were being enjoyed by the other regular Lecturers

. Tne National eligibility Test 1S regularly held by Arunacnal unversity, which is tne only University in arunacnal Pradesn, and persons desirous of applying for the joo of lecturers in Colleges are Tree to sit in the National Eligibility Test,1f tney are, otherwise, eligible.(v) Some lecturers were appointed on aanoc basis during the year 1989 on being selected by a duly constituted Board formed by the Govt. vide order No. ED/nhe-45S86 dated 03. 05. 89. Tnese Government College lecturers Nad been serving on adnc basis Tor more than three years and were drawing their periodical increments ana also enjoying other benefits like LTC, earned Leave and other facilities as per rules in force, which were being enjoyed by the other regular Lecturers. Cons1dering their services as adanoc Lecturers for a considerable period and the othr Tacilities that were being enjoyed by them, the govt. nad to regularize tneirservices in relaxation fo recruitment rules as one time waiver. Tne case of tnepetitioners, thus, cannot be equated with tnose adnoc lecturers appointed in theyear 1989 as the petitioners were appointed on the basis of their applications|only anda they were not selected by any Selection Committee or the APPSC. This aart, one wrong order cannot be made a reason for perpetuating sucn order on the

ground of discrimination. In fact, before the ad-hoc appointment of the petitioners, no aavertisement had been issued. The candidates had applied on tneir own ana as there was a large number of applicants, a formal interview was held, on 02. Ll. 1999, for selection of the candidates. The petitioners were appointed pureLy on termporary basis till lecturers were selected for the purpose of appointment py the APPSC on regular basis. Tne Lecturers of the colleges are appointed onregular basis following due selection and recommendation by tne APPSC in pursuance of advertisements publisned for the purpose as per the UGC guidelines. In the case of scheduled Tribe candidates, minimum 55% marks prescribed by the UGC haS been relaxed to 50% by the State Govt. put there can be no relaxation of the prescribved qualification of passing of tne NET or SLET.(v1) Neither at tne time, wnen the petitioners were appointed on adhoc basis norat tne time, when tney were engaged on contract basis, the poetitioners raisedany objection nor did they approacn the Court for their regular appointment as tney Knew the fact that they do not fulfitl the required qualifications. The appointment of the petitioners as ad-noc lecturers were, tnus, only a stop-gap arrangement and they nad accepted and acquiesced the adhoc as well as contractual appointments for short term period.|

(vil) The petitioners’ appointment on contract basis were for specific period anaq the petitioners accepted the appointments Knowing the conditions of such appontment and, nence, there was no justification in allowing them to continue beyonaq the contracted period as the APPSC has already selected eligible candidates fr being appointed on regular basis. The writ petitioners must give way to the-regularly selected candidates for being appointed as Lecturers.

( 5 ) I have neard Mr. C. Baruah, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. K. Etc,appearing on behalf of the petitioners in wp (C)Nos. 17/2001,392/2001,413/2001and 7/81/2001, and Mr. T. Michi, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP (C) 17(AP)/ 2000, and Mr. T. Siram learned counsel for the petitioner in WP (C) 13/20Ol. 1 have also neard Mr. RH Nabam, learned Addl. Senior govt. Advocate for therespondents Nos. 1 and 2, and Mr. T. Pertin, learned Standing counsel for the respondent No. 3. Mr. KP patnak, learned Senior counsel, and Mr. B. C. Das, lLearnqa counsel, nave been heard aS am1CuS CuUrlae ( 6 ) Presenting the case, on benalf of the petitioners, in WP (C) Nos. 1/7/2002392/ 2001 and 413/2001, Mr. C. Baruan has submitted that since the initial appointments of the petitioners in these three writ petitions nad been on adhoc basiS and ona regular scale of pay as College Lecturers against sanctioned posts, tne State respondents could not have legally, witnout giving notice to snow causeand/or nearing, terminated their appointment and converted the same into contractualt appointments.

( 7 ) Projecting the case of allt the petitioners in WP (C)1/7 (AP)/2002, 392 (A/2001, 413 (AP)/2001 and 7/781 (AP)/2001, Mr. C. Baruahn has atso submitted thattne strength of the contractual appointments received by the petitioners, the petitioners rendered their services satisfactorily and they Legitimately expectedregularization of their services, but instead of regularizing their services, tne State respondents have endeavored to terminate their services.

( 8 ) It 1S also submitted by Mr. C. Baruan that the qualifications prescribed by the UGC for appointment of College lecturers have not been formally adopted bytne State Govt. by making amenament in the relevant recruitment rules, namely,|Recruitment of Rutes of 1994. Mr. Baruan has pointed out that according to the Recruitment Rule of 1994, the qualification prescribed for appointment of CollegeLecturers 1s Masters Degree in the concerned subject with, at least, 50% marks©or its equal with any good academic records. The recruitment rules,iurther points out by Mr. Baruan, do not make passing of tne NET or slet as a condition preceagent for appointment to tne post of College Lecturers. Mr. Baruan further submis tnat the State respondents cannot, without making appropriate amenament in therelevant recruitment rules, insist that a candidate for appointment to the post of Govt. College Lecturers must not only have, at Least 55% marks in Masters' Degree, but must nave also passed NET or SLET. If the condition imposed by the State respondents that a candidate must have passed NET or SLET 1s not insisted upon, the writ petitioners would be eligible for recruitment to the post of college lecturers in terms of the relevant recrultment rules.

( 9 ) Mr. Baruahn nas also submitted that Rule 5 of the relevant recru1ltment rus confers powers on the Governor of the State to relax even the conditions of service in consultation with tne APPSC and the present one is a fit case, according to Mr. Baruan, 1n wnicn the necessary conditions of naving, at least, 55% markSs in Masters' Degree snould be relaxed in the case of those writ petitioners, wo have not obtained such marks for, those petitioners, who do not possess requisite marks, are, points out Mr. Baruan, members of Scheduled tribe.|

( 10 ) Mr Baruah also points out that the petitioners were working for a long t1me with the Legitimate expectation tnat their services would be regularized in course of time and in the intervening period, some of tnem might have become over-aged.|

( ll ) Mr. Baruahn also submitted that in the past, the State Government has regLarizeda the services of tne lecturers, who were appointed on adhoc basis, and hnce, refusal to regularize tne services of the present petitioners 1s a hostilediscrimination, whicn is not permissible under the Law.

( 12 ) Controverting the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Pert1n nas drawn the attention of this Court to Columns-/7 and 10 of the Scnedule totne relevant recruitment rules and submitted that tnough column-7 prescribes, atLeast, 55% marks in masters’ Degree in the concerned subject for appointment totne post of College Lecturers, column-10 indicates, submits Mr. Pertin, that tne recruitment has to be made as per the ugc guidelines. Since the UGC guidelinesprescribe, contends Mr. Pertin, that a candidate must not only have 55% marks aSs stipulated in Column-7, but must nave also passed NET or SLET, the requiremenof clearing of tne NET or SLET must be treated as pre-requisite qualification anad an essential condition of recruitment. In the case at nand, apart frorn the act, submits Mr. Pertin, that some of the writ petitioners do not have requisitequalification of having obtained 55% marks in terms of Column-7, none of the petitioners nave qualified eitner in tne NET or SLET. In such a situation, contendSs Mr. Pertin, the petitioners cannot be regarded as persons eligible for selecton and/or appointment to the post of College Lecturers in terms of the relevantrecru1ltment rules.

( 13) Mr. Pertin has contended tnat since the petitioners nave already participated in the selection process by submitting their application forms and the saidapplications nave been rejected on the ground that the petitioners do not possess the requisite qualifications, they cannot, now, turn to the court and seek dlrections for regularization of their services in asmucn as the petitioners has walved tneir rights, if any, to claim regularization of their services.|

( 14 ) Lending support to the submissions made on benalf of the respondent No. 3, Mr. Nabam has submitted that the initial appointments of the petitioners werenot made as a result of any interview neta after calling, by way of any advertisement, applications for appointment to the posts of Govt. College lecturers andtnese petitioners were, in fact, appointed following the interview, which was hetd on the basis of tne applications made by them on their own. Such appointmentsqo not vest in the petitioners, according to Mr. Nabam, any right to claim reguLarization of their services. Mr. Nabam has also submitted tnat since the petitloners are not qualified under the relevant recruitment rules, they cannot seek regularization of their services. Mr. Nabam has furtner submitted that the regularization of some aanoc Lecturers in the past cannot be made a precedent Tor reguLarization of the services of the present petitioners inasmuch as sucn regularis ation would pe de hors the relevant recruliltment rules ( 15 ) Mr. Nabam nas also submitted that on the strengtn of contractual appointments, tne petitioners cannot be said to have acquired any indefeasible rignt toclaim regularization of their services. Tne wrong done in the past cannot, according to Mr. Nabam, be asked by the petitioners to be perpetuated by the state.|

( lo ) Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of themeterials on record, wnat transpires to be the most crucial issue for determinat10n in the present batch of writ petitions is this : wnat 1S the minimum qualiflcation required, in tne State of Arunacnal Pradesh, for appointment of lecturersin Government Colleges? Tne answer to tnis question is not very difficult to seek. Notwitnstanding tne conflicting submissions, which nave been made on behalfof tne parties before this Court, what nas finally emerged as tne admitted caseof the parties is tnat Tor recruitment to the post of lecturer of Government ColLege, tnere does exist Recruitment Rules Known as Lecturer of Government College(Group A Post)Recruitment Rules, 1990, (nereinafter referred to as \recruitmentRutes of 1990\ ). It 1S Rule 3, which deals witn the recruitment of Lecturers oTf Govt. colleges and provides as follows: \method of Recruitment, Age Limit andother qualifications etc : - Tne metnod of recruitment to the said posts, age limit, qualifications and other matters relating thereto snatl be aS Specified incolumns 5 to 13 of tne Scnedule aforesaid. \

( 17 ) In the schedule to the Recruitment rules of 1990, it 1s column No. 1,/7 aaq 10, which are relevant and the relevant portions of these columns are reprodueq nereinpelow:

Name of post|

Educational & other Qualifications required for direct recruits.|

123456TJ

Lecturers of Govt colleges|

KKKKKKKK

KKMasters’ Degree in concerned subject with at least 5 5 % marks or its equivalent grade with good Academic record Metnod of recruitment whether by direct recruitment, promotion or by deputation/ transfer and percentage of the vacancies to be filled various metnods rsOQ10|11|1)|13|

KKKK100% by direct recruitment on the basis of written test and interview conductedTor the purpose by the University Grant Commission/councit of Scientific and Inaqustriat Researcn/ Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission as may be decideby Arunacnalt Pradesn Public Service Commission on the basis of guidelines of te University Grant Commission.|KKKKKK

( 18 ) A close and dispassionate reading of wnat 1s contained in Column-/7 and 1indicates that under Column 7, the minimum qualification required for recruitment to the post of lecturer of Govt. college is Masters’ degree in the concernedsubject with, at least, 55% marks or its equivalent grade with good academic record and Column 10 Lays down that 100% appointments have to be made by direct recruitment on the basis of written test and interview to be conducted for the purpose by, amongst others, APPSC as may be decided by APPSC on basis of guidelinesof tne University Grant Commission. The question, whicn, now, arises for consideration 1s as to whether the expression\ on the basis of guidelines of the University Grant commission\, occurring in Column-10 witl mean the essential qualifications fixed by tne ugc for the purpose of recruitment to the post of lecturer ofcollege or the procedure and manner of selection of Lecturers of college.

( 19 ) Before answering the above question, it 1S of immense importance to clarlTy as to now far the guidelines issued by the UGC are binding on the Universities or State governments and/or can prevait upon tne rules framed by a State governing recruitment of Lecturers in Govt. Colleges. While answering tnis question,it 1S pertinent to note that tne UGC has come into being under the ugc Act, 1956, and the same nas been enacted under the provisions of Entry 66 of List I of tne Seventh Scnedule to the constitution for co-ordination andaq determination of andards in institutions for nigher education or researcn and scientific anda tecnical institutions. Section 26 of the UGC act, 1956, entitles the UGC to make, Dy notification in the official gazette, regulations, consistent with provisionsof tne UGC Act and the Rules made thereunder, for defining tne qualifications that snould ordinarily be required of any person to be appointed to the teaching staff of the University, nNaving regard to the branch of education in whicn he isexpected to give instruction and regulating the maintenance of standards and thecoordination of work or facilities in universities.

( 20 ) In exercise of the powers conferred on the UGC by Section 26, the UGC haspublisned regulations Know as University grant Commission (Qualifications Requlred of a Person to be Appointed to tne Teaching staff of a University and Institutions Affiliated to it) Regulations, 1991. These Regulations apply not only toUniversities, but also to every institution, recognized by tne UGC, whicn is establisned under tne Central Act or State act. Clause 2 of the said Regulations prescribes qualifications and Clause 3 prescribes consequences of failure of universities to abide by the same.

( 21 ) What 1s, now, of prime importance to note is tnat tnough Clause 2 prescribes qualifications required for appointment of lecturers in Colleges, the firstproviso to clause 2 permits relaxation in the prescribed qualifications with prior approval of the UGC. Tnis apart, Clause 3 of the said Regulations lays down tne consequences of failure of universities to comply witn the recommendations oftne UGC set under clause 2. The consequences entail withdrawal by the U. G. C..of grant to tne Universities or institutions concerned. Tne provisions of clause2 are, tnerefore, palpably recommendatory in character and not mandatory. It would be open to a University, if it so decides, to comply with the provisions ofClause 2 by employing as Lecturers only such persons, wno would fulfill the requi1site qualifications prescribed in the schedule to the said Regulations. It wouqd also be open, in specific cases, for the University to seek the prior approvaof tne UGC to relax tnese requirements. Yet again, it would be open to the University not to comply witn the provisions of Clause 2, but in sucn a case, if theUniversity faits to satisfy tne UGC that 1t had done so Tor good cause, it woulaq lose its grant from the UGC. The said Regulations do not intrude upon the powrs of tne university to select its teachers.|

( 22 ) Situated tnus, it 1s clear that a University may appoint as a lecturer intne University and in its affiliated colleges those persons, who have cleared tne tests prescribed by the said regulations or it may seek prior approval for the relaxation of this requirement in a specific case or it may appoint as Lecturer one, who does not meet this requirement witnout nNaving Tirst obtained the UGCS approval. In such an event, the University would, if it failed to snow cause Tor its failure to abide by the said regulations to the satisfaction of the UGC,Torfeit its grant from tne UGC. If, nowever, the University does snow cause to tne satisfaction of the UGC, then, the University would not forfeit its grant andtne appointment made witnout obtaining the UGC'sS prior approval woulda stand rularized. I am guided to adopt these views from the Law laid down by the Apex Court in University of Detni vs. Raj Singh, reported in 1994 (Supp) (3)SCC 516, wherein the question as to whether the qualifications prescribed under Clause 2 oftne said Regulations are mandatory Tor the universities has been answered py tne Apex court in the following words:

\the first proviso to Clause 2 permits relaxation in the prescribed qualifications by a university provided it 1S made with the prior approvat of the UGC. This1s because the said regulations, made under the provisions of section 26 (1) (e)define the qualifications tnat are ordinarily and not invariably required of a.Lecturer. Tne second proviso to Clause 2 makes the application of the said Regulations prospective. Clause 3 of tne said Regulations provides for the consequence of the failure of a university to comply with the recommendations made in Clause 2 in the same terms as are set out in Section 14 of the UGC Act. The provisions of Clause 2 are, therefore, recommendatory in character and not mandatory. Itwould be open to a University to comply witn the provisions of clause 2 by employing as lecturers only sucn persons as fulfill the requirements as to qualifications for the appropriate subject provided in the scnedule of the said regulations. It would be open, in specific cases, for the University to seek the prior approvalt of the UGC to relax tnese requirements. Yet again, it would be open to te University not to comply witn the provisions of clause 2. 1n which case, in tne event that it failea to satisfy the UGC that it had done so for goods cause, 1t would lose its grant from the UGC. The said Regulations do not impinge upon the power of the University to select its teachers. Tne University's autonomy is not entrencned upon by the said regulations. Put shortly, the Delni University 1smandated to Comply witn tne said Regulations. AS analyzed above, therefore, tneDelhi university may appoint as a lecturer in itself and its affiliated collegeS wno nas cleared the test prescribed by tne said Regulations: or it may seek pr10r approval for the relaxation of tnis requirement in a specific case: or it may appoint as lecturer who does not meet this requirement witnout nNaving Tirst otained the ugc's approval, in which event it would, if it failed to snow cause f or its failure to abide by the said Regulations to the satisfaction of the ugc.Torfeit its grant from the UGC. if. nowever, it did snow cause to the satisfactlon of tne UGC. it not only would not forfeit its grant but tne appointment madewithout obtaining tne UGC'sS prior approval would stand regularized.

( 23 ) Reference may also be made to Dr. (Ms) Kuntala Patra Vs. Guwanatli univerity and others, reported in 1995 (1I)GLT 308, wherein a Division Bench of this curt nas hela that the qualifications prescribed by the said Regulations 1s onlydirectory and not mandatory and that for non-compliance witn the requirements oftne regulations regarding qualifications, an appointment cannot be invalid.

( 24 ) Reverting to tne case at nand, wnat attracts my attention is that in thecase at hand, unlike the case of Delhi University (Supra) and dr. (Ms) Kuntala Patra (supra), where the universities appeared to be disinclined to abide by thequalifications prescribed by the ugc Tor appointment of Cotlege Lecturers, the present one 1S a case in whicn the Public service Commission, the University andtne state Government are inclined to follow the ugc guidelines. Tne question, therefore, which, now, arises for consideration 1S as to whether, in the State ofArunachal Pradesn, qualifications prescribed by the UGC for selection and appointment of Lecturers can be insisted upon by the State respondents as a minimum qualification for recruitment to the post of lecturers of Govt colleges. The answer to tnis question 1s very simple and the answer is that there 1S no impedimentand there can be no impediment on the part of the State respondents to follow tne guidelines relating to qualifications prescribed by the UGC provided that tneRecruitment Rules of 1990 so permit.|

( 25 ) The question, therefore, which, now, falls for consideration is as to whetner the ugc guidelines, which require that a candidate for the post of lecturerin Govt. Colleges must pass NET or SLET, can be insisted upon by the State respondents, in the face of tne facts of the present case, as an essential conditionTor recruitment.|

( 26 ) It has peen, as indicated nerelinabove, submitted, on penalf of the Staterespondents, that a co-joint reading of Column 7 and 10 aforementioned will snowtnat the minimum qualification required for appointment to the post of Lecturerof Govt. College 1s Masters degree in the concerned subject with, at least, 55%marks or its equivalent grade with good academic record and Column 10 snows that the recruitment nas to be made on the basis of the guidelines issued by the UGC. Since the guidelines issued by the UGC prescribe clearing of NET or SLET aS apre-requisite for a candidate to seek appointment as lecturer of Government CotLege, tne State respondents are, it 1S contended, within the ambit of itsS powerin insisting that a candidate for the post of lecturer of Govt. College must nave cleared NET or SLET aS a pre-requisite qualification for selection. This subm15s10n ex-Tacie does not nold water. Column 7 clearly shows that it 1s this Column, which fixes educational qualification required for direct recruitment, whereas column 10 relates to tne metnod of recruitment. Tnat Column 10 relates to onty the process of selection and not to essential qualifications for selection 1samply clear from the fact that all tnose, wno pass NET or SLET, stand at the same level and no element of selection 1S required for determining whether a person1S more suitable than the otner. This 1S clear Trom the following observations|made by the Apex Court in Dethi university (supra):

\thne University may stilt select its lecturers by written test and interview oreither. Successful candidgates at the basic eligibility test prescribed by the s1d Regulations are awarded no marks or ranks and, therefore, all who nave cleareqd it stand at tne same Level. Tnere 1s therefore, no element of selection in thprocess. \

( 27 ) Coupled with the above, a careful scrutiny of the UGC notification whicnnas been annexed as Annexure A, snows tnat these guidelines not only Tix qualifl cations Tor recruitment, but also the metnod and manner of selection including tne question as to now a Selection Committee nas to be set up Tor selection of lecturers and wno snould be made members of sucn Committees. Thus, clasue 10 relates to tne UGC guidelines Laying down the method of recruitment and not qualifications required for appointment. Viewed from this angle too, there can be no escape from the conclusion tnat on the strengtn of the UGC guidelines, the State respondents cannot insist tnat clearing of NET or SLET 1S a pre-requisite qualification for appointment of Lecturers in Govt. Colleges under the recruitment Rulesof 1990 consequently, the only qualification that can be insisted upon for sucnselection 1S as has been prescribed undaer clause 7. TO a pointed query made by nis court in this regard, Mr. Pertin and Mr. Nabam were unable to explain as tonow the method of recruitment can be stretcneq to mean qualifications required for appointment.

( 28 ) Situateda tnus, I nave no nesitation in nolding tnat so long as the Recrutment Rules of 1990 remain wnat they are, tne State respondents cannot insist onclearance of NET or SLET as a condition precedent for atlowing a candidate to apply Tor selection to the post of lecturer of Govt. college if he has a Masters'qegree in the concerned subject with, at least, 55% marks. In other words, tne.UGC guidelines prescribing qualifications for appointment of lecturers of College cannot override tne relevant Recruitment Rules framed by the State under ArtictLe 309 of the constitution of India. The remedy for the state respondents lies n incorporating in the said Rules clearing of NET or SLET as an essential qualification for appointment to the post of lecturer of Government College.|

( 29 ) Having settled tne postion of Law as indicated hereinabove, when I turn to tne Tactual matrix of tne present case, it becomes clear tnat in WP (C) Nos. 17/2002,392/2001, 413/2001 and 781/2001, all those writ petitioners, who have Masters' degree in the concerned subject with, at least, 55% marks, are eligible Tor selection. To a pointed query made by tnis Court, Mr. K. Etc has submitted that except the petitioners Nos. 3 and 4 in wp (C) No. 781 (AP) 2001, alt other petitioners do nave the minimum qualification as required under Column 7. this posltion 1s, in fact, not disputed before me. Hence, it becomes clear that except tne petitioners Nos. 3 and 4, namely, Snri Jonny Tecni and Shri jumya Lotlen in WP(C) No. 781 (AP) 2001, the remaining petitioners, in all these four writ petitions namely, WP (C) Nos. 17 (AP) 2002, 392 (AP)2001, 413 (AP)2001 and 781 (AP)2001 are eligible for selection and the respondents, particularly, the respondent no. 3 could not Nave declined to call them for interview. Viewed from this angle,the interim directions passed on 08. 03. 1999, 15. 03. 1999 and 05. 03. 1999 aTorementioned in WP (C) Nos. 1/7 (AP)2002/1069 of 1999 (PS), 392 (AP)2001/1239 of1999 (PS)and 413 (AP) 2001/9500 of 1999 (PS)respectively, are just and proper anthe same need to pe made apsolute.|

( 30 ) Coming to the question as to whether the services of the petitioners in WP (C) Nos. 17 (AP) 2001, 392 (AP) 2001, 413 (AP)2001 and 781 (AP)2001 are required to be regularized under tne Recruitment Rules of 1990, it 1s extremely important to note tnat entry to any service through backdoor nas, time and again, beendeprecated by the Apex court. Since tne petitioners nave completely Tailed to snow that they were interviewed, selected and/appointed on the strength of any advertisement issued under the Recruitment rules of 1990, it Logically follows that tne selection of tne petitioners concerned for appointment on ad-hoc basis oron contractual pasis was not in accordance witn tne said Rules. Tnis becomes clear from the fact that the assertion of the State respondents that there was no aaqvertisement for selection/ appointment and that the candidates nad, on their on, applied Tor appointment and were accordingly interviewed, has not been categoricatlly disputed by the writ petitioners. Tne conclusion, therefore, which 1s iresistible to draw, is that tne recruitments of the petitioners aforementioned,in the present case, were made de hors the Rules.

( 31 ) Coupled to the above, the appointments of the writ petitioners in WP (C)

Conclusion

( 31 ) Coupled to the above, the appointments of the writ petitioners in WP (C)

Nos. 17/2002 ,392/2001 and413/2001 were on adhoc basis. A person, who 1S appinteon adanoc basis, Knows that his appointment is for a specific period and it iS stop-gap arrangement until que selection 1S made. Hence, the principles of natural justice cannot be said to have been violated, wnen service of an adanoc appontee is terminated, particularly, wnen the termination 1s neitner stigmatic norpenal in nature, but to fill up tne post by making regular selection. Tnis apart, the Recruitment Rules of 1990, nowhere, envisage appointment on adhoc basis oron contract basis. Neither do these Rules provide for automatic regularization|of adnoc appointees without their having participated in the selection process 1nitiated unger the regcruitment Rules of 1990 nor does adhoc or contractual appointment vest any right for regularization of such service. Reference may be madein tnis regard to Director, Institute of Mangement Development Versus pusnpa Srivastava, reported in (1992) 4 scc 33, wherein the Apex Court observed thus, \to our mind, it I clear that where tne appointment 1s contractual and by effluxof time. the appointment comes to an end, the respondent could nave no right tocontinue in the post. Once tnis conculsion 1S arrived at. wnat enquires to be eXamined 1S. in view of the serves of the respondent being continued from time totime on adnoc basis for more tnan a year wnetner she is entitled to regularizat10n ? Tne answer should be in the negative. \

( 32 ) Even in State of Haryana Vs. Piara singn and Others (AIR) 1992 SC 2130) tne apex Court has observed and held tnhnu \many appointments may have Been made iregularly-as in this case in the ense tnat the candidates were neither sponsored by the employment Exchange nor were tneyappointment after issuing a proper aavertisement calling for applications, In snort, 1t may be a back door entry. A direction to regularize such appointments would only result 1n encouragement to such unhealthy practices. \

( 33 ) While pointing out the above position of law, I also feel tempted to refer to Dr. (Mrs)Kiran Srivastava vs. Unviersity Grant commission, Delhi, reportedin 2002 (1)SLJ 417, wherein it nas been held as ToLllows \1it was not intended to be a permanent employment but was a stop gap arrangemenand, therefore, selection for engagement against such Associatesnip could not nave conferred any rignt on the petitioners to be appointed to a permanent post or to be regularized an order for regularization of services of the petitioners could be made only availability of existence of a post of the nature and vacancies therein and that too in accordance witn the Recruitment/appointment rules andregulations of the particular Institute/ university. ...... . . . . . . a.

woe ee ee ee ee ele leh )6hWhEN dhBNE APPOLNtment was purely adahoc andon contractual basis for a Limited priod. on expiry of the said period, the rignt to remain in the post comes to an end. The petitioners cannot claim any rightmuch less vested right to continue to remain as researcn Associates beyond tnecontract period and their right to remain in the said capacity come to an end onexpiry of the contract period. \

( 34 ) Adverting to the plea of the petitioners in WP (C) 17 (AP) 2002, WP (C)392 (AP)206LtL and WP (C) 413 (AP) 2001 that since in the past, tne Govt. had regurized the services of some lecturers of Govt. Colleges witnout fTallowing the prvisions of the relevant recruitmentrules, tne same policy snallt be adopted in te case of these writ petitioners, suffice it to point out here that in chandigarnN Administration vs. Jagjit singn, reported in (1995) 1 SCC 745, the apex Courtnas hela that tne mere fact tnat an authority nas passed a particular order in tne case of anotner person similarly situated cannot be a ground for issuing a writ in Tavour of the petitioner on the plea of discrimination if the order in favour of other the person is found to be contrary to law or not warrnated in the Tacts and circumstances of tne case. Noticing that tne Hign Courts, in exercise ofT tneir writ jurisdiction, nave been passing orders to remove discrimination an tnereby asking the autnorities concerned to repeat the illegality, the Apex Court has expressed its anxiety on such an approacn and has succintly laid down theposition of law in Chandigarn administration (supra) in the following words:

\we are of the opinion tnat the basis of the principle, if it can be called one,on wnhicn the writ petition nas been allowed by the High Court 1S unsustainablein law and indefensible in principle. Since we nave come across many such instancies, we tnink it necessary to dealt witn sucn please at a Little Length. GeneraLy speaking, the mere fact that the respondent authority nas passed a particularorder in the case of anotner person similarly situated can never be tne ground|Tor issuing a writ in favour of the petitioner on the plea of discrimination. The order in favour of the otner person might be legal and valid or it might not De. Tnat has to be investigated Tirst before it can be directed to be followed inthe case of the petitioner. If the order in favour of the otner person is Toundto pe contrary to law or not warranted in tne facts and circumstances of Nis Case, it 1S obvious that such illegal or unwarranted order cannot be made the basiS of 1SSU1Ng writ compelling the respondent autnority to repeat the illegality or to pass another unwarranted order. The extraordinary and discretionary power ofT tne nign Court cannot be exercised for sucn a purpose. Merely because the resOondent authority has passed one illegal/unwarranted order, it does not entitle ne High Court to compet the authority to repeat the illegality over again and again. The i1llegal/unwarranted action must be corrected, if it can be done accordng to law-indeed, wherever it 1S possible, tne Court should direct the appropriate authority to correct sucn wrong orders in accordance with law but even if itCannot be corrected, it 1S difficult to see how it can be made a basis for its repetition. By refusing to direct the respondent autnority to repeat the illegallty, the Court 1S not condoning the earlier itlegalt act/order not can such illegtL order constitute the basis for a Legitimate complaint of discrimination. Givig effect to such please would be prejudicial to the interests of Law and will doincalculable mischief to public interest. It witl be a negation of law and tne.rule of law. Of course, if in case the order in favour of the order person is Tound to be Lawful and justified one it can be followed and a similar relief can De given to the petitioner if it 1S founda that the petitioner's case 1S Similar o tne otner persons’ case’. But then why examine anotner person's case in his absence ratner than examining the case of the petitioner who is present before theCourt and seeking he relief. Is 1t not more appropriate and convenient to exam1ne the entitlement of the petitioner before the court to the relief asked for intne facts and circumstances on his case than to enquire into the correctness ofthe other made or action taken in another person's case, which otner person 1snot before the case nor 1s his case. In our considered opinion such a course-barring exceptional situations would neitner be/ advisable nor desirable. In otherwords, the High court cannot ignore the Law and the well-accepted norms governing the writ jurisidiction 1 and say tnat because in one case a particular order Nas been passed or a particular action has been taken the same must be repeated 1rrespective of the fact whether sucn an order or action 1s contrary to law or otnerwise. Eacn case must be dicided on its own merits, factual and legal, in accordance with relevant legal principles. The orders and actions of the authoritiescannot be equated to the juagments of the Supreme Court and High Courts nor canthey be elevated to the Level of the precedents, as understood in the judicial|world. (What 1s the position in the case of orders passed by authorities in exercise of tneir quasi-judicial poser, we express no opinion. Tnat can be dealt witnN wnen a proper case arises ).

( 35 ) Let me, now, turn to the next, question, namely, in the face of the factthat the two petitioners in WP (C) No. 781 (AP)/2001, namely, Shri Jonny Tecni ana Shri Jumya tollen are not qualified unger the relevant recruitment rules, whetner, on the strength of the UGC guidelines, the minimum qualification of 55% marKS aS prescribed by the relevant recruitment rules can be relaxed by taking recourse to the provisions of rule 5 of the recruitment Rules of 1990. It 1S of paramount importance to note, as already indicated nereinabove, that the UGC guidel ines prescribing the qualifications or providing for relaxation of such prescribed qualifications cannot be applied witnout amending tne relevant recruitment ruLes. Viewed from tnis angle, the fact that the UGC guidelines prescribe relaxatlon of qualifying marks in the case of ST/sc candidates to 50% from 55% cannot beread into the relevant recruitment rules witnout making necessary amenaments intne rules, wncin nave been frairned under article 309 of the Constitution. Tn1sapart, the qualifying marks fixed under the relevant recruitment Rules of 1990>1s an essential condition of the recruiment and not merely a condition of service. ‘the ssentialt conditions of recruitment cannot be relaxed, though a conditioof service may be relaxed. Reference may be made, in this regard, to a divisionBench decision of tnis Court in ananda Ram Boran vs. State of Assam, reported 1n 2003 (2) GLT 78, wherein this court observed and neld as TfOLLOws

\the question, whicn call for determination by tnis Court 1S. whether the powerto relax tne rule would go to the extent of relaxing conditions of recruitment aLso or it can be only to the extent of relaxing tne conditions of service ? Cana direct recruit Tor recruitment to tne post of LDA avoid competitive examination ? Can the Government exercise power of relaxation of Rule of recruitment requlring a direct recruit to appear in the competitive examination and sucn relaxatlon of the recruitment rules 1S permissible in Keshnab chandra Josni -Vs- Union oIndia, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 272. the Apex Court has empnasized the neeqd of strict compliance of the recruitment Rules for both direct recruits and prmotees. It 1S neld tnat there cannot be any relaxation of the basic or fundamental Rules of recruitment. That was a case wnere the Rule permitting relaxation ofconditions of service came for consideration and it was neld by a three juages|Bench that the Rule did not permit relaxation of the recruitment Rules. In SyedaKnalid Rizvi -Vs- Union of India. 1993 Supp. (3)SCC 5/75. the Apex Court observe\. Tne condition precedent, therefore, is tnat there snould be an appointment tothe service in accordance with rules and by operation of the rule, undue harada1p nas been caused,. .. . 1it 1S already hela that the condition of recruitmentand conditions of service are district and the Latter 1s Preceded by an appointment according to Rules. The former cannot be relaxed. \ Tnus, according to the Apex Court there 1s distinction between the conditions of recruitment and conditions of service. Appointment has to be made in accordance witn the recruitment Rules and thereafter, there may be a relaxation in the service condition. Similarty, in State of Orissa -VsS- Sukanti Monapatra (1993) 2 SCC 486. it was hela tnattnough the power of relaxation Stated in tne Rule was in regard to \any of the provisions of the Rules\ this did not permit relaxation of the Rule of direct recruitment witnout consulting tne Commission and the entire ad-noc service of a dlrect recruit could not be treated as regular service. In M. A. Haque (Dr.) -Vs-Union of India. (1993) 2 SCC 213 and in Jammu and Kasnmir Public Service Commiss10n-Vs- Dr. Narinder Mohan. (1994) 2 SCC 630. it has been emphatically laid downtnat the Rule relating to recruitment could not be relaxed. The jJudagment in tmatter of Suraj Prakash Gupta (Supra) has also reiterated tne principle laid down by the Apex Court that there cannot be any relaxation of the conditions of recru1ltment. Tne conditions of recruitment and conditions of service are distinctThe Government has tne power to relax conditions of service, whereas the condit1ons of recruitment cannot be relaxed even though tne Rule intends to do so. \

( 36 ) Thus, notwithstanding the fact tnat Rule 5 of the Recruitment Rules of 1990 makes provisions for relaxation, tnese provisions can be applied only to theconditions of service and cannot be resorted to for relaxing the conditions of recruitment; hence, even if the respondents intended to relax the conditions of recruitment by relaxing the qualifications prescribed under tne Recruitment Rulesof 1990, they could not nave Legally done so. The remedy lies in incorporating—in tne relevant rules itself that in the case of candidates belonging to the SC/st, the prescribed qualification is Masters Degree in the concerned subject with, at least, 50%. Thus, when the petitioners concerned, namely, Jonny techni and umya Lollen are not qualified to receive tne apoointment, no drection Tor regularization oft tneir services under the relevant Recruitment Rutes of 1990 can be ssued py this Court.|

ssued py this Court.|

( 37 ) What 1s also worth pointing out 1s that while terminating the adanoc appontments, in question, the State Government appointed these petitioners on contractual basis. There 1s absolutely notning on record to show that the petitionersnad raised any objection to termination of their adnoc appointments and/ or conversion tnereof to contractual appointments nor did they approach the court, whentne impugned advertisement was issued; ratner, accepting the inevitable, the petitioners applied for appointment in pursuance of the advertisement, in question. After naving applied for appointment on clear understanding that their serviceS were aanoc and would not get automatically regularized, the petitioners cannot, now, seek a direction from this Court commanding the State respondents to reguLar1ze their services.|

( 38 ) So far as the appointment on contractual basis 1S concerned, it 1S also pertinent to point out that no advertisement was published and the writ petitioners in all the four writ petitions, namely, WP (C) Nos. 17/2002, 392/2001, 413/20O01 and 781/ 2001, had not applied Tor selection in pursuance of any advertisemet. The clearly snows that the petitioners Knew that their appointments were mereLy on contractual basis and did not vest in them any right to demand regularizat10n of their services. Tnis apart, a person, appointed on contractual basis, intne facts and circumstances of the present case, cannot ask automatic regularization of nis service. Viewed thus, it 1S clear that the petitioners have not beenable to make out any case for autnomatic regularization of their services.|

( 39 ) What/ now, Tatts Tor consideration is as to what reliefs, if any, the petitioners are entitled to. In view of the fact that those petitioners, who were eLigible for being considered for selection and appointment and yet the State respondents refused to catl them for interview, the interim directions passed on 08. O03. 1999, 15. 03. 1999 and 05. O03. 1999 in wo (C)Nos. 17 (AP)/2002/wp (C) 10of 1999 (PS), 392 (AP)/2001/wp (C)1239 of 1999 (PS) and 413 (AP)/2001/wp (C) 950 of 1999 (PS) respectively, in respect of such petitioners need to be made AbsoLute. I. therefore, make these interim orders abosolute. Since, in pursuance ofthe interim directions, the petitioners have already been interviewed, the sealeaq covers/envelopes in whicn the results of the interview have been Kept shall bopened by the State respondents and if the petitioners stand selected, they snaLl be accordingly appointed. Tne wnole exercise, so directed, snatl be completedwitnin a period of two months from today. So far as the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4, Nnamely/ snri Jonny Techni and Shri Jumya Lotlen in wp (C) No, 781 (AP)2001 arconcerned, tney were, as indicated hereinabove, not eligible Tor appointment andnence, they are not entitited to any relief.|

( 40 ) Coming to the WP (C) Nos. 175 (AP)/ 2000 and 13 (AP)/2001, it 1S pertinent to note that both these petitioners stood duly selected in the inerview, wnicnwas neld following the advertisement, in question, and the State repondents nave not appointed them due to non-availability of vacancies. Tnus, apart from theTact tnat there 1S no impediment on the part of the State respondents to appointthe petitioners in WP (C) Nos. 175 (AP)/2000 and 13 (AP)/2001 if the vacancies|are available, it 1S imperative to note that the advertisement, dated 22. 3. 2000, aforementioned was issued by the State respondents inviting applications forspecified number of posts. At the time of issuing of this advertisement, tne State respondents were fully aware of the fact that 3 (tnree) writ petitions, namety, WP (C) 17 (AP) 2002 (WP (C) 1069/1999, WP (C)392 (AP) 2001 (WP (C)1239 of 2999) and WP (C)413 (AP)2001 (WP (C)950 of 1999) were pending for consideration andon the basis of the interim directions, the petitioners stood already interviewed. Being fully aware of these Tacts, wnen the State respondents publisned the aaqvertisement, dated 22. 3. 2000, it Logically Tollows that tney invited applica1ons for fitting up of the 1l (eleven)posts, whicn were eitner vacant or were LiKely to Tall vacant, independent of the fact as to wnat tne Court would decide 1n tne said pending writ petitions. Having daone so, when these 2 (two) petitione S were called for interview and upon interview, when they stand duly selected, 1t pecomes obvious tnat upon sucn selection, these petitioners’ expectation to receive appointments to the posts appliea for must be regarded as Legitimate exapectation and the State repondents cannot simply shirk their responsibility by saying that appointments of these 2 (two) petitioners would be made depending upontne out-come of the said 3 (three) pending writ petitions.|

( 41 ) Considering, therefore, the matter in its entirety and in the interest ofjustice, it 1S nereby directea tnat after considering the cases of the petitioners in WP (C) Nos. 1/7 (AP)/2002, 392 (AP)/2001, 413 (AP)/ 2001 and 781 (AP)/200, who nave been Tound eligible for consideration for appointment, the state respOndents shall, according to the result of the interview faced by the petitionersin W. P. (C) Nos. 1/7 (AP)/ 2002,392 (AP)/2001,413 (AP)/2001 and 781 (AP)/2001,Consider the cases of the two petitioners in WP (C) Nos. 175 (AP)/ 2000 and 13 (AP)/2001 for appointment if any vacancy to accommodate tnem remains available. IfT no vacancy readily becomes available,on sucn considerations, as directed nerenbefore, to accommodate the two writ petitioners, namely, Dr. Kesnab Kr. Jha andsnri Otem Jamon, the State respondents shall appoint the 2 (two) writ petitioners as anda wnen next vacancies to accommodate tnem pecome available.

( 42 ) Witn the above opservations and directions, tnis writ petition snatl stanqd disposed of.

( 43 ) No order as to costs.|