Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19919 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Gyanoday Kumar Singh S/O Sri Nagendra Prasad Singh R/O 403, Rajendra Ram Piaza, Exhibition Road, P.S.-Gandhi Maidan, Distt-Patna 2. Abhijit Anand S/O Chandradeo Prasad Near Sunshine School, Maharshi Nagar, Shorpur Chowk, P.S.-Bela, Distt-Muzaffarpur 3. Rajkishore Singh S/O Late Badri Nath Singh R/O Shastri Nagar, Ward No.35, P.S.-Shastri Nagar, Distt-West Champaran 4. Chandra Mohan Kumar S/O Sri R.P. Singh R/O Dyachiran Road No.2(East), P.S.-University, Distt-Muzaffarpur 5. Varti Kumar S/O Sri Harendra Prasad Singh Adarsh Nagar, Sekhpur, Distt-Muzaffarpur 6. Mithilesh Kumar Thakur S/O Sri Ramkhelawan Thakur R/O Mohalla- Bengali Tola, Near Raghvendra Hospital, P.S.-Laheriasarai, Distt- Darbhanga 7. Vishaldev S/O Sri Shambhu Nath Singh R/O 201, Friends Siddhi Apartment, Harishankar Verma Lane, P.S.-Budha Colony, Distt-Patna 8. Upendra Kumar Sinha S/O Sri Sachnandand Sinha R/O Vill-Dirpur, P.O.-Makrauta, P.S.-Karaiparsurai, Distt-Nalanda .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, Through Principal Secretary, Science And Technology Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna 2. The Director, Science And Technology Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Nodal Officer, Science And Technology Department , C/O I.A.S.Bhawan, Government Of Bihar, Near Patna Airport, Patna 4. The Deputy Secretary, Science And Technology Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna 5. The B.P.S.C. through its Secretary, B.P.S.C., Bailey Road, Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Lal Mr. Pritish Kumar Lal For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.N. Sahi AAG14 For the BPSC : Mr. Sanjay Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 9 14-05-2013 Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The prayer in this writ application reads as follows: “(A) A writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) quashing the merit list containing names of short listed candidates for Patna High Court CWJC No.19919 of 2012 (9) dt.14-05-2013 2 the contract appointment of the teaching cadre post in Engineering College and Government Polytechnic in the State of Bihar (hereinafter called „the Polytechnic‟) as contained in Annexure 1. (B) A writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s), commanding the respondents for not giving effect to about appointment of candidates out of the Annexure 4 for their appointment on teaching cadre post on contract basis in Engineering College (hereinafter called „the College‟) and Polytechnic in the State of Bihar as well as declare the entire appointment process to be for oblige motive and a colourable exercise of power. (C) A writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s), commanding the respondents to treat the working guest lecturer in the Polytechnic to be as per with contract lecturer including all weight age.” 3. Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Lal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, with reference to the service history of the petitioners has emphasized that not only all the eight petitioners possess the requisite qualification for the post of Lecturer/ Assistant Professor as laid down by the AICTE for different departments of Engineering Colleges/ Polytechnics but in fact they have been also working for a pretty long period. Reference in this connection has been made to paragraph 3 of the writ petition and the enclosure describing it to be part of paragraph Patna High Court CWJC No.19919 of 2012 (9) dt.14-05-2013 3 3 which reads as follows: “3. That the petitioners are citizens of India and are Engineering Graduate working on adhoc basis guest teachers at various Government Polytechnic within the jurisdiction of this Hon‟ble Court. That name, age, educational qualification, name and location of Polytechnic, date of commencement of their working as such are given in a chart and is annexed herewith this petition as its part. Name Age Degree Gyanoday Kumar Singh Abhijit Anand Raj Kishore Singh Chandra Mohan Kr. Vrati Kr. Mithilesh Kr.Thakur Vishaldev Upendra Kr. Sinha 50 26 40 27 25 44 32 51 B.Sc.Engg (Civil) B.Tech. (I.T.) B.Sc.Engg (Civil) B.Tech. (C.S.E.) M.Tech. (Digital Commu.) B.Sc.Engg (Elec.) B.E. (C.Sc.) B.Sc.Engg (Civil) Sl. No. 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 Name of Institutions were petitioners are working and it‟s location. Govt. Polytechnic, Muzaffarpur Date of commencement of working. Oct.2008 Govt. Polytechnic, Muzaffarpur Govt. Polytechnic, Muzaffarpur Govt. Polytechnic, Muzaffarpur Darbhanga College of Engineering Darbhanga College of Engineering Darbhanga College of Engineering Govt. Polytechnic, Muzaffarpur 7th Aug.2012 17th Nov.2009 17th Nov.2009 21st Sept.2011 Nov. 2009 Nov. 2009 to Aug. 2011 19th Nov.2009 4. On the basis of the aforementioned service history of the petitioners it has been contended that when the petitioners were already working as Guest Lecturers the respondent officials of the State of Bihar had no justification either in issuance of an advertisement dated 26.5.2012 for filling up the post of Lecturer in teaching cadre of the Engineering College and/or Government
Facts
Patna High Court CWJC No.19919 of 2012 (9) dt.14-05-2013 4 Polytechnic or preparation of a panel by declaring the result, as
Legal Reasoning
proceeded that by now it is well settled proposition in law that an ad-hoc appointee cannot be replaced by another ad-hoc appointee and according to him contractual appointment sought to be made in terms of the advertisement dated 26.5.2012 and the consequential merit list would also be in the nature of an ad-hoc appointment. Reference in this connection has also been made by him to an order of this Court dated 8.10.2012 in C.W.J.C.No. 12728/2012 wherein according to him the practice of replacement of one ad-hoc appointee by another appointee has been deprecated and the directions have been issued not to disturb such ad-hoc appointee continuing on ad-hoc basis till the post is filled up by way of regular appointee. 5. Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi, learned AAG14, on the other hand, having filed the counter affidavit as also supplementary counter affidavit has explained that the petitioners cannot be strictly called even ad-hoc appointee in the sense that their ad-hoc appointment was made by the Principal of the Polytechnic who has never been authorized to even make an ad- hoc arrangement on the post of Lecturer in the Govt. Engineering College/ Polytechnic. According to him, ad-hoc arrangement was Patna High Court CWJC No.19919 of 2012 (9) dt.14-05-2013 5 also required to be made only by the State Government and that too after following the selection procedure but the petitioners had never undergone even such selection procedure. In this regard he relies on paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit which reads as follows: “That the petitioners are working as guest Lecturers on part time basis in pursuance to the Departmental letter No. 586 dated 24.3.2009. They are not appointed by the respondent Department. They have been allowed by the respective Principal to engage classes @ 400/- per class. Their engagement is on part time basis. This engagement has been done on local level in the interest of students. Roaster points has not been followed in this engagement Contract teachers were engaged on full time basis on fixed monthly salary and on centralized basis after following the settled norms and procedures of appointment. Petitioners are not at par with the teachers working on contract basis.” 6. He has further submitted that there will be a world of difference between ad-hoc appointee who has been selected in view of the advertisement followed by the written examination because if the Government had found it difficult to make regular appointment in absence of recommendation made by the Bihar Public Service Commission it has to still select the best candidates by holding open competitive examination and that is how the Patna High Court CWJC No.19919 of 2012 (9) dt.14-05-2013 6 advertisement in question dated 26.5.2012 was issued by the respondents, whereafter a written test was held on 26.8.2012 and the results have been published, as contained in Annexure 3 to the writ application. He has further explained that on the basis of result of such Aptitude written test the counseling also had been conducted for making appointment on contract basis in between 27.9.2012 to 28.9.2012 but no appointment on the basis of same could be made because of an interim order passed in this case by this Court on 19.10.2012. 7. Mr. Shahi has also explained that there is also no such bar imposed by this Court in its order in the case of Manoj Kumar Singh (supra) prohibiting the State from making any appointment on contract basis and in fact this Court had only gone to hold that such of the contract appointees who were appointed pursuant to the advertisement followed by the selection could not have been replaced by another set of contract appointees pursuant to fresh process of selection. According to Mr. Shahi the order of this Court dated 8.10.2012 in the case of Manoj Kumar Singh (supra) will in no way aversely affect the decision of the State in filling up the vacant post of teachers in the Engineering Colleges/ Polytechnics on contract basis till the regular appointment is made on receipt of the recommendation of the Bihar Public Service Patna High Court CWJC No.19919 of 2012 (9) dt.14-05-2013 7 Commission. 8. When this case was heard on 24.4.2013 and a plea was taken by the learned AAG14 that despite repeated requisition sent by the State Government to the Bihar Public Service Commission for making regular appointment on the post of teachers in Government Engineering Colleges/ Polytechnics has borne no fruitful result, the Bihar Public Service Commission was impleaded as respondent no.5 to this writ application and the learned counsel for the Commission was directed to obtain instruction as to in what time the Commission would be in a position to send its recommendation in respect of all the requisitions received by it in respect of the appointment on the post of Lecturer in the Government Engineering Colleges/ Polytechnics. 9. It has to be noted that this writ application was being heard alongwith C.W.J.C.No. 19093/2012 ( Ramji Singh v. the State of Bihar & ors.) wherein the petitioner, an ad-hoc teacher in the Department of Automobile Engineering in New Government Polytechnic, Patna, has prayed for a direction to extend his service beyond 26.1.2012. In the aforesaid case having almost a similar prayer as in the present case but in a different shape, this Court on 25.4.2013 had passed an order, relevant portion whereof reads as Patna High Court CWJC No.19919 of 2012 (9) dt.14-05-2013 8 follows: “Having regard to the fact that this Court in the order dated 8.10.2012 passed in C.W.J.C.No. 12728 of 2012 has already issued a direction for filling up of the post of teachers in the different Government Polytechnics on permanent basis by way of regular appointment, this Court would call upon the Principal Secretary of the department himself to swear supplementary counter affidavit stating as to how many sanctioned posts are available in all the Government Polytechnics and the number of persons working therein on the basis of regular appointment. He will also indicate as to how many persons are working on teaching posts on contract and from which date. Such details of the present position of teaching employees would be given by the Principal Secretary subject wise in respect of each and every government Polytechnic separately. The Principal Secretary will also disclose the reasons for not filling up the permanent sanctioned teaching posts in the Government Polytechnics by way of regular appointment.” 10. Pursuant to the aforementioned order the Principal Secretary of Science and Technology Department had filed her affidavit in C.W.J.C. No. 19093/2012 wherein it has been stated as follows: “5. That, at outset, it is also stated that 84 regularly appointed teachers are working in the Polytechnic Institutes/ Colleges in the State of Bihar against 439 Patna High Court CWJC No.19919 of 2012 (9) dt.14-05-2013 9 sanctioned posts and in addition to that 5 teachers appointed against the sanctioned posts in the Polytechnic institutes are presently posted and working in the Directorate and the State Board of Technical Education. 6. That, it is also stated and submitted that vide order as contained in Memo No. 712 dated 16.3.2012 (Annexure 12), the department has directed to all principals to re- engage 71 teachers on the contractual basis for a maximum period of one year from the date of execution of the contract agreement but thereafter, no further order has been issued for the extension of the contractual period as vide Resolution as contained in Memo No. 17415 dated 20.12.2012, the General Administrative Department has stopped the contractual appointments. 7. That, it is also pertinent to state here that the regular appointment on the post of teachers in the Polytechnic institutes in the State of Bihar, can only be made on the recommendation of the Bihar Public Service Commission, Bihar, Patna (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter referred to as the Commission). 8. That, it is relevant to mention here for consideration that some of the contractual teachers had preferred an writ application bearing its number as CWJC No. 2315/2011 and sought for the relief as to direct respondents to grant weightage to the petitioners in the regular appointments on account of their experience and service in the contractual capacity. The case was heard at length by the Hon‟ble Court with analogous cases and vide order dated 4.4.2011, the Hon‟ble Court has pleased Patna High Court CWJC No.19919 of 2012 (9) dt.14-05-2013 10 to direct as follows:- “Since interviews has commenced, it may not be very practical and feasible to direct the commission today to allow all such candidates to appear in interview. However, this Court directs the commission shall not prepare final result after interviews and shall not prepare a panel and also shall not make recommendation to the Government for appointment on the posts concerned during the pendency of the writ application.” That, thereafter, finally, vide order dated 14.9.2012, the Hon‟ble Court was pleased to vacate the ad-interim stay and disposed of the aforesaid writ application with certain observations. 9. That it is also pertinent to state here that thereafter the Commission had inquired about the departmental decision regarding the grant of weightage to the candidates who were employed and worked earlier under the aegis of the Department on contractual basis and informing as well stressing therein that as per the concerned advertisement, there is no provision/ clause relating to the weightage as now claimed by the candidates appearing in the interview and finally vide letter no. 862 dated 2.4.2013 the Commission has also been requested to conduct the interview.” 11. On perusal of the said affidavit of the Principal Secretary and having regard to the fact that the Bihar Public Service Commission had not filed its affidavit an order was passed Patna High Court CWJC No.19919 of 2012 (9) dt.14-05-2013 11 on 29.4.2013, relevant portion whereof is quoted hereinbelow: “ Though the affidavit has been filed by the Government in the first case enclosing the number of requisitions sent to the Bihar Public Service Commission for filling up of the regular post of Assistant Professor in the Government Engineering/ Polytechnic Colleges, Mr. Sanjay Pandey learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Commission is not in a position to take a firm stand on the same due to lack of instruction and thus prays for a week‟s time in order to enable the Commission to file its affidavit explaining as to why the selection process for the requisitioned posts by the Government has not been undertaken as yet and the time frame in which such recommendation would be sent to the Government. In the analogous case being C.W.J.C.No. 19093 of 2012, the Government has also been directed to file a clear affidavit as with regard to each and every vacancy giving the entire break-up of the working hand and the vacancy position in the Government Engineering College and/or Polytechnic College. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that the Principal Secretary has already acted upon and in fact has instructed each of the Principal of the Colleges to submit the details on the basis of which he can swear an affidavit. In that view of the matter, as jointly agreed by the parties, the pleadings shall be exchanged between them on or before 9th of May, 2013. List both these cases on 10th of May, 2013 under the Patna High Court CWJC No.19919 of 2012 (9) dt.14-05-2013 12 heading „Admission-II‟ as a first case.” 12. The Commission ultimately has filed its counter affidavit on 10.5.2013 wherein having given details of Advertisement No. 4/2009 to 37/2009 as also Advertisement No. 40/2009 to 44/2009 it has primarily taken two grounds for not submitting its recommendation for filling up the post of teachers for the Government Engineering Colleges/ Polytechnics. In the first place the Commission has complained that the Government has not given the necessary clarification as sought for with regard to filling those posts. Secondly, it has also taken a plea that there was a stay order in C.W.J.C.No. 2315/2011 dated 4.4.2011 relating to grant of weightage for the experience as a part time Lecturer in the interview to be recognized by the Commission which had become the impediment, inasmuch as the Commission had been restrained for preparing its final result and/or sending its recommendation for appointment on the post. 13. According to the affidavit sworn by the Joint Secretary cum Examination Controller to the Commission it is this clarification with regard to weightage which has caused delay for the Commission in submitting its recommendation. In this regard from paragraph 18 of the counter affidavit of the Commission it would transpire that such clarification by the State Government Patna High Court CWJC No.19919 of 2012 (9) dt.14-05-2013 13 was issued only on 2.4.2013. Paragraph 18 of the Commission‟s counter affidavit being relevant is quoted hereinbelow: “18. That it is further stated that the Department had replied to the above letters of the Commission through letter no. 862 dated 2.4.2013, wherein it was mentioned that in the matters of already published Advertisements, there is no provision for giving weightage for work experience to candidates who have worked on contract. After getting clarifications for the appointment of Lecturers in Govt. Polytechnic and Govt. Women Polytechnic, the process of holding interview is being started by the Commission.” 14. The further complain of the Commission as with regard to lack of co-operation on the part of the Science and Technology Department can be found in paragraphs no. 19, 20 and 21 of the said counter affidavit which reads as follows: “19. That it is further stated that on the requisitions sent by the Department, the Commission had published Advertisement No.05/2012, Lecturer, Textile Engineering, in Govt. Polytechnic. In this advertisement also, the Commission had sought some clarifications from the Department through letter no.19, dated 3.4.2013. The department has not clarified the points as yet. 20. That it is further stated that the Commission had also sought some clarifications on certain points from the Department regarding appointment of Principal in Govt. Patna High Court CWJC No.19919 of 2012 (9) dt.14-05-2013 14 Polytechnic and Govt. Women Polytechnic (old Advertisement No.06/2009 and 17/2009) through letter no.1233 dated 28.8.2012 and again sent a reminder through letter no.3012 dated 20.3.2013. The Department has not clarified the points due to which the process of re-advertisement has been kept pending by the Commission. 21. That it is quite evident from the above facts that the Department has not clarified on vital points- like giving weightage to part time lecturers, contract lecturers, some points related to educational qualifications, experiences and points to be awarded to published journals. The Commission requires clear cut directions and guidelines regarding most of the Advertisements, from the Department. It is further stated that after getting proper clarifications from the Department, the Commission would undertake to re-advertise vacancies for those posts for which revised requisitions have been sent by the Department and to hold interviews for those Advertisements, which have been kept pending due to the lack of Departmental guidelines.” 15. In view of above stand of the State Government and the Commission it becomes absolutely clear that both of them have been blaming each other for not filling up the vacant post of teachers in the Government Engineering Colleges/ Polytechnics on regular basis. This Court, however, fails to understand in the first place as to where was the question for the Commission to make Patna High Court CWJC No.19919 of 2012 (9) dt.14-05-2013 15 repeated queries from the State Government on this aspect when the requisition sent by the State Government and the consequential advertisement issued by the Commission did not contain a clause for giving weightage for the teachers appointed on ad-hoc basis in the Government Engineering Colleges/ Polytechnics. The norms of selection in an open competitive advertisement has to be either on the basis of rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India or in absence thereof it is the Commission which has to devise its own selection procedure in conformity to the mandate laid down under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Commission, therefore, was well within its power and jurisdiction to devise its own norms by not considering the issue of weightage but actually going by the concept of actual teaching experience earned by any candidate whether appointed on ad-hoc basis or otherwise which could be very well determined by assessment made in the viva-voce test from amongst the successful candidates in the written examination. Thus, for judging teaching experience of the candidates the Commission had to devise its own norms and it could not have kept on entering into the endless correspondence with the State Government and thereby, leaving the matter in cold storage for a period over four years. Patna High Court CWJC No.19919 of 2012 (9) dt.14-05-2013 16 16. It is really unfortunate for this Court to note that the selection process for the teaching posts advertised in the year 2009 by the Commission have not yet been completed even when the stay order in C.W.J.C.No. 2315/2011 was vacated on 14.9.2012 without even touching the issue of grant of weightage in any manner. The operative portion of the order of this Court dated 14.9.2012 in C.W.J.C.No. 2315/2011 in fact reads as follows: “In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the State that the petitioners‟ engagement on contract shall not be terminated till the expiry of stipulated period of service on contract, the stay order is vacated and the
Arguments
contained in Annexure 3 to the writ application. Mr. Lal has
Decision
I.A.No. 5789 of 2012 is disposed of. The submission of the petitioners is that after expiry of the contract, the State Government may again fill up the post by the persons on contract, if the State Government does it so then the past service rendered by the petitioners shall be taken into account for renewal of their contract. The writ petition is disposed of.” 17. The decks thus having been cleared for the Commission to make its recommendation at least on 14.9.2012 in view of the aforesaid order passed in CWJC No. 2315 of 2011, the Government also should have clarified its stand to the Commission which was eventually done on 2.4.2013 by specifying that no weightage was to be given for the post already advertised by the Commission. It thus becomes apparent that both Patna High Court CWJC No.19919 of 2012 (9) dt.14-05-2013 17 the Government and the Commission were only buying time and finding excuse for not completing process of regular appointment on the vacant post of teachers in the Government Engineering Colleges/ Polytechnics. 18. The supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Principal Secretary to the Science and Technology Department in C.W.J.C.No. 19093/2012 clearly goes to show that 355 post of teachers in Government Polytechnics alone are vacant and only 84 of them are being manned either by way of regular appointment or ad-hoc appointment. This Court in the order dated 8.10.2012 in C.W.J.C.No. 12728/2012 had noted that 71 teachers were working on contract basis in Government Polytechnics and therefore, if 84 teachers in all are working in the Government Polytechnics as has been stated by the Principal Secretary of Science and Technology Department in her latest affidavit, that would mean that only 13 post of teachers are being held by regular appointees as against 439 sanctioned post. Though no clear picture has been given in the supplementary counter affidavit of the Principal Secretary in support of the Engineering College, but from the order dated 8.10.2012 in C.W.J.C.No. 12728/2012 it would be clear that 27 teachers were working on contract basis in the Engineering Colleges as against 305 sanctioned post. Patna High Court CWJC No.19919 of 2012 (9) dt.14-05-2013 18 19. The question, therefore, would be can this adhocism in the field of technical education should be allowed to continue? It is no one‟s case that there is a dearth of talent or the Commission is not getting the candidates with requisite qualification. In fact even ad-hoc appointees who have been selected either pursuant to the present advertisement dated 26.5.2012 or even earlier by undergoing a process of selection have the necessary qualification but then it is only because the Commission, who alone has power to make recommendation for appointment on these gazetted post, has failed to do its duty that the regular appointment has not been made till today. 20. It is true that no real concern has been shown even by the Government functionaries for filling up these teaching posts on regular basis with the recommendation of the Commission and in this callous and negligent approach of both the State Government and the Commission it is the students of this State who have become the biggest causality. A judicial notice can be taken of the fact that a large number of meritorious students of this State are going to the Institutions outside the State only because they find that there is a lack of infra-structure especially want of dedicated teachers. The dedication from a teacher cannot be expected if he is employed on a contract basis because he is not Patna High Court CWJC No.19919 of 2012 (9) dt.14-05-2013 19 sure of his terms of employment. The educational institutions and particularly Engineering Colleges and Polytechnics are not the temporary schemes where a daily wager or an ad-hoc employee can be appointed. It is high time that the State Government should realize the need of having permanent meritorious faculties who have to be provided with a dignified and secured service condition by making regular appointment on the teaching posts. 21. In view of above, this Court will in fact fail in its duty if it does not record its displeasure towards the total neglect of creating proper educational environment in teaching institutions, particularly in the Engineering Colleges and Polytechnics of this State. The scenario of teaching in the Engineering Colleges/ Polytechnics is virtually in shambles and before it becomes too late in the day it is high time that the persons in authority either in the State Government or in the Commission must rise to the occasion and do the needful to restore the old glory of the educational institutions in this State. The employment on contract basis may be a concept of industrial pace and development but the permanent educational institutions including the Engineering Colleges and Polytechnics can hardly afford to exist with the present adhocism being practiced by way of appointment of teachers on contract basis. Such contractual appointment in fact is Patna High Court CWJC No.19919 of 2012 (9) dt.14-05-2013 20 neither to the benefit of the students nor to the teaching employees and no wonder times without number the educational institutions of this State are being de-recognized for want of qualified permanent faculties. 22. As noted above, the first impediment for not making appointment by way of stay order in C.W.J.C.No. 2315/2011 is already over and whatever has been observed therein in the order dated 14.9.2012 should not be taken to be ratio of that case, inasmuch as this Court had only clarified that one set of contractual appointment should not be replaced by another set of contractual appointment and if it is so resorted, the past service of earlier contract appointees shall be duly recognized in the process of making contract appointment. Such observation, however, was made by this Court in keeping with the settled law that one set of contract appointment should not be replaced by another set of contract appointment. The logical corollary of the aforesaid observation was that the Government had to take steps for making regular appointment. 23. As a matter of fact the shelter taken by the respondents in the order dated 8.10.2012 in the case of Manoj Kumar Singh (supra) also is of no avail, inasmuch as the same principle of one set of contract appointees to be replaced by Patna High Court CWJC No.19919 of 2012 (9) dt.14-05-2013 21 another set of contract appointees has again been deprecated by this Court in the aforementioned order wherein it has been held as follows: “While a contractual appointee may not have an indefeasible right to demand renewal of the contract, yet if there is a renewal clause there has to be some plausible explanation for not renewing the contract. If there are no allegations against the petitioners, it stands to reason that there can be no justification not to renew their contract and make fresh appointments on contract against the very same posts. In fact, there can be no justification for fresh contractual appointments after having published a regular advertisement. The appropriate course of action would be to permit the petitioners to continue on contract till the regular appointments are not made. This observation has to be read as confined to those who are working on contract and cannot limit the powers of respondents to make contractual appointments on the remaining vacancies pending regular appointments. ... ... ... ... The respondents are therefore restrained under the impugned advertisement from making contract appointments on the posts which the petitioners are holding in contractual capacity till such time that regular appointments are not made. At the risk of reiteration and clarification, nothing prevents the respondents from making contractual appointments under the impugned advertisement on other vacant posts. It may be proper for Patna High Court CWJC No.19919 of 2012 (9) dt.14-05-2013 22 the respondents that they expedite the process for regular appointments under the advertisement already published and conclude it at an early date to prevent unnecessary litigations.” 24. On the basis of the aforementioned order of the (underlining for emphasis) learned Single Judge the respondents have proceeded in two fold manner, firstly, by impressing upon the Bihar Public Service Commission to expedite the process of regular appointment and secondly, to fill up those vacant post which are not occupied by the regular appointees or contractual appointees. 25. The petitioners unfortunately are in neither category. They are definitely not regular appointees nor their contractual appointment has been made by the prescribed authority after following the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It has to be taken into account that even the contractual appointees who were before this Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Singh (supra) or in the present set of appointment to be made in view of the advertisement dated 26.5.2012 are those persons whose results have been declared on the basis of competitive examination held in pursuance of an advertisement issued for those post of teachers in the Government Polytechnics. Therefore, when the petitioners are only the guest teachers Patna High Court CWJC No.19919 of 2012 (9) dt.14-05-2013 23 appointed by the Principal of the College by way of fortuous arrangement they cannot object to entry of regular appointee or even ad-hoc appointees on the posts of teachers of Government Polytechnics held by them. 26. Thus, the prayer made in this writ application questioning the result of written examination held for making contractual appointment on the post of teacher in the Engineering College and the Government Polytechnic must be held to be wholly misconceived and it has to be held that the circumstances are such which would necessitate filling up of these vacant substantive vacancies on the post of teachers in the Engineering College/ Polytechnics on contract basis at least for the limited period the regular appointments are not made on the basis of selection and recommendation of the Commission. 27. Nonetheless this Court would also expect that in keeping with the affidavits filed by the Commission and the State Government, the clarifications sought by the Commission from the State Government must be furnished at the earliest so that the steps for regular appointment by the Commission is expedited. Counsel for the State has submitted that such clarification will be furnished by the Department of Science and Technology to the Commission within a period of four weeks from today and the Patna High Court CWJC No.19919 of 2012 (9) dt.14-05-2013 24 learned counsel for the Commission on his part has also assured this Court that the selection process shall be started as early as possible so that the recommendation for filling up all the vacant posts of teachers in all the Government Polytechnics could be made positively by the Bihar Public Service Commission on or before 15th December, 2012. Mr. Shahi, learned AAG14, has submitted that if the Commission would make its recommendation for regular appointment in the aforesaid time frame, consequential appointment will also be made by 31.12.2013. As with regard to the post of teachers in Engineering Colleges, Mr. Sanjai Pandey, learned counsel for the Commission, has submitted that the Commission would expedite the process of selection and recommendation as soon as the necessary requisition and clarification is received from the State Government. 28. That being so, this writ application is disposed of with the following observations and directions: (i) The petitioners working as Guest Lecturers appointed by the Principal of the Polytechnic have no right to continue in service alike the ad-hoc teachers who have been appointed after issuance of advertisement and selection and their engagement must be terminated by the Principals of the respective polytechnics as soon as the State Government would appoint the teachers on Patna High Court CWJC No.19919 of 2012 (9) dt.14-05-2013 25 contract basis against the posts held by them pursuant to the advertisement dated 26.5.2012 and the consequential merit list prepared after holding of the written test. (ii) The interim order dated 19.10.2012 passed in this case restraining the respondents from making final appointment on contract basis in view of advertisement dated 26.5.2012 and the consequential merit list based on the written aptitude test held on 26.8.2012 is accordingly hereby recalled. (iii) If any contract appointment is also made on any teaching post in the Government Polytechnics and/or Engineering Colleges the same shall be made by the State Government alone on the basis of open competitive examination pursuant to an advertisement published in newspaper and not by the Principals of such Government Polytechnics and/or Engineering Colleges and the tenure of such appointment will also be only for a period of one year or till the regular appointment on those post is made by the State Government on the recommendation of the Commission, whichever is earlier. (iv) The Principal Secretary of the Department also must furnish all the information/clarification to the Bihar Public Service Commission within a period of four weeks from today so that the process for regular appointment by the Commission by holding a Patna High Court CWJC No.19919 of 2012 (9) dt.14-05-2013 26 written test followed by interview for filling up the advertised posts of teachers in Government Polytechnics is completed by the Commission within a period of six months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. (v) The Commission on its part must send its recommendation for all the teaching post of Government Polytechnics already advertised, by 15th December, 2013 without fail so that the consequential appointments by the State Government on regular basis of all such teaching posts in all the Government Polytechnics is completed by 31st December, 2013. (vi) In the cases of vacant post of teachers in the Engineering Colleges the State Government must submit its fresh requisition to the Commission by 30th June, 2013 so that the vacant post in the Engineering Colleges all over the Bihar are advertised by the Commission by 31st July, 2013 and the selection process by way of holding written test and interview is completed by 31st March, 2014 enabling the State Government to fill up vacant post of teachers in Engineering Colleges by way of regular appointment by 31st of May, 2014. (vii) All efforts should be made by the State Government and the Commission to ensure that no ad-hoc appointment on the post of teachers in Government Polytechnics and Engineering Patna High Court CWJC No.19919 of 2012 (9) dt.14-05-2013 27 Colleges either on contract basis or otherwise remains in existence from the next academic session of all the Engineering Colleges and/or Government Polytechnics i.e. from 2014-15 Session which would commence in the month of July, 2014. Let it be made clear that the aforesaid observations and directions have been made and/or issued in keeping with the stand taken by both the State Government and the Commission and therefore, no deviation shall be made as with regard to them either by the State Government or the Commission without prior permission of this Court and anyone doing so shall become liable for being proceeded and punished under the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J) Surendra/-