The Issue Involved In These Two ... vs Unknown
2022 Latest Caselaw 1419 AP

     HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

        WRIT PETITION Nos. 5251 & 8088 of 2021

COMMON ORDER:-

      The issue involved in these two Writ Petitions is similar,

wherein, the orders in not extending the services of the

petitioners as Guest Faculty in different subjects are under

challenge and the same are disposed of by this Common Order.


2.    Heard Mr. Devalaraju Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the

petitioners, Mr. C.Sudesh Anand, learned counsel representing

the 2nd respondent-Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge

Technologies (hereinafter referred to as 'University') along with

Mr. Pithani Chandrasekhar Reddy, and Mr. P.S.P.Suresh Kumar,

learned Standing Counsel for AICTE.

3. The facts as set out in the petitioners' affidavit may

briefly be stated thus:

To cater the Educational needs of meritorious rural youth

of Andhra Pradesh State, the 1st respondent established four

IIITs under the 2nd respondent-University. Every year, 1000

students per campus are admitted and around 20,000 students

are imparted education with the support of 300 regular and

contract faculty. It is a six year Integrated Engineering

Programme i.e., two years of Pre-University Course (PUC) and

four years of Engineering.

NJS,J W.P.Nos.5251 & 8088 of 2021

4. The 2nd respondent-University issued a Notification dated

15.05.2018, inter alia, stating that it requires 300 + more contract

teaching faculty apart from existing faculty for teaching students in

the respective campuses and invited applications for teaching

positions on contract basis, in the prescribed format for the academic

year 2018-19, in the areas of Civil, CSE, ECE, MME, ME, Chemical

Engineering, Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, English,

Telugu, Fine Arts, Yoga, Psychology, Physical Education, Library

Science and other Social Science subjects. In the said Notification, it

was mentioned that the positions notified are purely temporary,

carry consolidated emoluments without allowances and that initially

appointment term will be for a period of one academic year and

extendable for a further period, subject to satisfactory performance

and requirement. The minimum prescribed qualifications for the

respective subjects are mentioned in the Notification.

5. Pursuant to the said Notification, the petitioners being

qualified and eligible, applied for teaching positions in the respective

subjects. They appeared for a written test along with other

candidates, qualified in the same and called for oral interview by the

Selection Committee. Subsequently, a list of candidates for

contractual teaching faculty in the respective subjects was notified

on 30.07.2018. Thereafter, individual Office Orders dated 31.07.2018

were issued to the petitioners informing them that on the

recommendations of the Selection Committee, they were engaged as

Guest Faculty in the respective Departments, with a consolidated

remuneration of Rs.25,000/-, purely on temporary basis for a period

from 01.08.2018 to 10.05.2019. Likewise, similar Office Orders dated

NJS,J W.P.Nos.5251 & 8088 of 2021

01.08.2018 were issued to some of the petitioners, fixing the

consolidated remuneration as Rs.32,000/- per month.

6. While the petitioners are rendering services as Guest Faculty,

the 2nd respondent-University issued a Notification dated 13.02.2019

for recruitment of teaching faculty on contract basis for the academic

year 2019-20. The petitioners herein along with others filed Writ

Petition No.4907 of 2019 before this Court seeking to set aside the

same on various grounds. While the said Writ Petition is pending, the

2nd respondent-University on 10.05.2019 issued Schedule for Faculty

Performance Review for Assistant Professor(c) and Guest Faculty

appointed during academic years 2017-18 and 2018-19. The

petitioners were called for the said performance review and

considering their performance, renewal orders were issued on

24.06.2019 renewing the contract of the petitioners and other

candidates from 24.06.2019 to 10.05.2020. Under the said

circumstances, the petitioners withdrew W.P.No.4907 of 2019 on

03.07.2019.

7. Due to outbreak of COVID-19, the Central Government, issued

an Advisory directing the continuation of contract & casual

employees and in view of the same, the 2nd respondent issued

speaking order, extending the tenure/contract of Assistant

Professors/Guest Faculty and Doctors up to 31.05.2020 or until

declaration of summer vacation, whichever comes earlier.

Subsequently, the 2nd respondent issued another speaking order

dated 28.05.2020 to the effect that the temporary services of

contract faculty whose extension is subject to assessment and review

by the University are extended till the completion of assessment

NJS,J W.P.Nos.5251 & 8088 of 2021

review by the University and such faculty should be available till

review and interview as and when scheduled. Despite the said

speaking order, the petitioners were not called for assessment and

review of their performance. The petitioners were not allowed to

perform their duties nor their salaries paid, while all other contract

faculty selected and appointed along with the petitioners under the

same Notification were allowed to duties and paid salaries. Under the

said circumstances, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No.17090 of

2020 ventilating several grievances. A learned Judge of this Court

granted interim orders dated 12.10.2020 with a direction to the

respondents therein to continue services of the petitioners & others

and subsequently the same were extended, until further orders on

20.11.2020. As the petitioners were not permitted to attend the

duties, they filed Contempt Case No.1343 of 2020. However, the

same was subsequently closed on 22.01.2021 as the respondents

filed a memo to the effect that they are continuing the petitioners in

service. During the pendency of the contempt case, respondents

herein issued Notification dated 08.01.2021 inviting applications for

the post of Lecturers(contract) for teaching PUC programme and

Assistant Professors (contract) for teaching B.Tech programme.

8. Writ Petition Nos.17090 of 2020 & batch etc., came up for

consideration before a learned Single Judge of this Court and the

same were disposed of by an order dated 22.01.2021, inter alia, with

a direction to the respondents to conduct review of the performance

of the petitioners and if they are found suitable to continue based on

review of performance, to take appropriate action in terms of the

contract. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent-University, conducted

NJS,J W.P.Nos.5251 & 8088 of 2021

performance review of the petitioners and by individual orders dated

22.02.2021 informed the respective petitioners that their services as

Guest Faculty are not extended due to "ineligibility for Guest Faculty

as per the eligibility criteria laid down by UGC/AICTE". The

petitioners were further informed that their services are discontinued

with immediate effect.

9. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioners filed the present

writ petitions.

CONTENTIONS:

10. The learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, submitted

that all the petitioners possessed requisite qualifications for

rendering services as Guest Faculty. They have faired well in the

written examination, interview, pursuant to the Notification dated

15.05.2018 issued by the University and on selection, rendered

services for about 2 ½ years. He submits that the petitioners are

teaching two years Pre-University Course (PUC-equivalent to

Intermediate Students) and therefore, UGC/AICTE norms are not

applicable to them. Drawing the attention of this Court to the said

Notification, the learned counsel submits that the minimum

prescribed qualification in respect of the departments for which the

petitioners applied is 55% at Masters' level in the respective

discipline from recognized universities and candidates with NET/SLET

or PH.D., would be given preference. He submits that all the

petitioners are having Masters' Degree which is minimum

qualification as per the Notification and having been satisfied with

the performance of the petitioners, the 2nd respondent appointed

them as Guest Faculty as mentioned earlier. He submits that, in fact,

NJS,J W.P.Nos.5251 & 8088 of 2021

the petitioners ought to have been appointed as contract faculty,

instead of Guest Faculty. The learned counsel submits that the

orders rejecting the extension of services of the petitioners on the

premise that they are not fulfilling the eligibility criteria laid down by

UGC/AICTE, is, not sustainable. He submits that the mode of

recruitment for teaching PUC students, is based on State norms and

the question of applying UGC/AICTE norms would not arise at all.

The learned counsel also submits that no such criteria was adopted

on the earlier occasion and the performance of the petitioners was

reviewed in the year 2019 when the initial contract period of one

year, pursuant to the Notification dated 15.05.2018 was completed.

The learned counsel submits that even as seen from the Notification

dated 28.12.2018 issued by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service

Commission in respect of posts of Junior Lecturers, the qualification

prescribed is minimum of 50% marks in Post Graduate Degree

examination. He submits that while the 'Mentors' who are having

similar qualifications like that of the petitioners are being continued,

the services of the petitioners are dispensed with on the premise that

they are not possessing the eligibility in terms of UGC/AICTE norms.

He submits that the salaries of the petitioners for the period from

June, 2020 are not being paid even though there is a direction dated

12.10.2020 to continue the services of the petitioners followed by an

Order dated 22.01.2021 passed in Writ Petition No.17090 of 2020 &

batch to continue the services of the petitioners, till their

performance is reviewed. The learned counsel submits that the

respondents are bent upon to dispense with/discontinue the services

of the petitioners as they approached this Court on the earlier

occasions, filed Contempt Case and further with a view to appoint

NJS,J W.P.Nos.5251 & 8088 of 2021

the faculty as per the whims and fancies of the University, by giving

a go-bye to the relevant norms. The learned counsel while drawing

the attention of this Court, to the Notification dated 08.01.2021,

further submits that the very fact that the respondents changed the

nature of contract by incorporating the words 'non-extendable for

further period' by deleting the words 'extendable for further period',

would make it clear that the aim and intention of the respondent-

university is to deny the petitioners continuation of services and

replace them with another set of faculty, on contract basis. He

submits that such an action on the part of the University is illegal,

arbitrary and constitutes violation of the petitioners' rights

guaranteed under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

The learned counsel also submits that some of the candidates who

were selected along with the petitioners were retained, though they

are not possessing PH.D. The learned counsel submits that even the

said Notification dated 08.01.2021 was issued without notifying the

number of vacancies, Rule of Reservation etc., and the same is

under challenge. He submits that as per the said Notification, the

posts/faculty is shown separately i.e., PUC-Lecturers and Assistant

Professor - B.Tech programme. He also submits that in fact the

qualification for the posts of PUC-Lecturers was reduced to 50%

aggregate marks in P.G. Degree examination from any recognized

university. Making the above said submissions, the learned counsel

submits that in any event, the discontinuation of the services of the

petitioners by applying UGC/AICTE norms is unsustainable and seeks

relief as prayed for, by setting aside the orders dated 22.02.2021,

impugned in the Writ Petitions.

NJS,J W.P.Nos.5251 & 8088 of 2021

11. Mr. Sudesh Anand, learned counsel for the respondent-

University while referring to the averments in the counter-affidavit

made elaborate submissions, inter alia, that the petitioners are not in

the selection list and got the appointments as Guest Faculty by

resorting to back door methods. He submits that on the earlier

occasion, the Notification dated 15.05.2018 was issued for

appointing Contract Teaching Faculty, but not Guest Faculty.

However, the petitioners got these appointments in an illegal and

irregular manner. He submits that the 1st respondent had in fact

ordered a vigilance enquiry with regard to allegations of irregularities

in the appointments of teaching and non teaching staff and in the

enquiry, several irregularities/illegalities came to light. He submits

that the 2nd respondent-University pursuant to the orders passed in

Writ Petition No.17090 of 2020, conducted performance review of

the petitioners by subject experts from IITs & NITs and except 10

candidates, all the others are not satisfying the UGC/AICTE norms

and therefore, their services were discontinued. He submits that on

the basis of recommendations of the Review Committee, the

University Executive Council had also passed resolution to

discontinue the Guest Faculty/candidates who are not satisfying the

UGC/AICTE norms. He submits that the 2nd respondent-University

has been established with specific object of imparting technical

education to the student community at large in rural areas and is

required to maintain standards on par with any university/institution,

in imparting technical education. He contends that even as per the

Notification dated 15.05.2018, the teaching positions/faculty shall be

filled up as per the norms followed by universities in the State of

Andhra Pradesh and therefore the contention that the appointment

NJS,J W.P.Nos.5251 & 8088 of 2021

of petitioners shall be as per the norms laid down by the State

Government in the G.Os., is not tenable. He further submits that the

qualifications mentioned in the Notification dated 15.05.2018 are

with regard to the position of Assistant Professor, on contractual

basis. Drawing the attention of this Court to the applications filed by

some of the petitioners, he submits that, in fact, the petitioners are

well aware that the post applied for is Assistant Professor and not

Lecturers, as sought to be projected. He further submits that even

as per the appointment orders issued to the petitioners, nowhere

was it mentioned that they were appointed as Guest Faculty for

teaching PUC students. He also submits that some of the petitioners

also taught courses to engineering students and the same would go

to show that the recruitment undertaken was not specifically for

teaching PUC students as sought to be contended. Further, with

regard to the change in the terms of contract with regard to deletion

of extendable term, he submits that it is well within the realm of the

University to fix the contractual terms, as per its requirements and

the petitioners cannot have any say in the matter. He also submits

that pursuant to the Notification dated 08.01.2021, which is the

subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition 5485 of 2021, initially

interim suspension of the Notification was granted and subsequently

after filing of counter-affidavit, the same was modified by an order

dated 05.05.2021 granting liberty to the 2nd respondent-University to

go ahead with the selections made pursuant to the said Notification

dated 08.01.2021 and issue posting orders, subject to the result of

the Writ Petition. He further submits that the 2nd respondent-

University with a view to streamline the system and procedure,

proposed to conduct interviews to the petitioners in the present Writ

NJS,J W.P.Nos.5251 & 8088 of 2021

Petitions along with the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.4510, 4511

and 5485 of 2021, who have not attended the interviews conducted

during the month of March, 2021 for teaching positions of Assistant

Professors and Lecturers on contractual basis. He submits that

about 85% of the Guest Faculty applied for the said positions,

attended the interviews and some of them were selected. Be that as

it may, he submits that in the performance review of the petitioners

undertaken by subject experts, it was observed that the petitioners

have not satisfied the UGC/AICTE criteria and therefore their services

were discontinued and the same cannot be found fault with. He

submits that quality teaching to the students is paramount object

and if the appointments made in respect of teaching faculty are

subsequently found to be irregular or the applicable norms are not

adhered to, it is open to the university to discontinue the services of

the faculty. The learned counsel submits that there are no merits in

the Writ Petitions and seeks for dismissal of the same.

12. The learned Standing Counsel for AICTE made submissions

with reference to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the

respondent No.11.

13. The learned counsel for the petitioners while refuting the

arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-

University, in reply, submitted that the allegations to the effect that

the petitioners are not qualified and got appointments through back

door are wholly unsustainable. He submits that the screening test

was conducted, merit list was prepared and the petitioners were

thereafter duly selected. He also submits that in the Notification

dated 08.01.2021, the teaching positions with regard to Lecturers for

NJS,J W.P.Nos.5251 & 8088 of 2021

teaching two year PUC programme and Assistant Professor for four

year B.Tech programme were shown separately and the said aspect

would belie the contentions advanced on behalf of the 2nd

respondent to the effect that there is no distinction between teaching

positions for PUC (2 years) programme and B.Tech (4 years)

Programme. The learned counsel further submits that the other

contention that the appointments in the 2nd respondent-University

would be governed by UGC/AICTE norms would hold no water, in the

light of the Government Orders G.O.Ms.No.30 dated 31.08.2020,

which provides that the mode of appointment shall be as per the

State Government norms, insofar as the teaching positions for two

years PUC programme are concerned. Accordingly, the learned

counsel submits that the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed as

prayed for.

14. The contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the

respective parties are considered and perused the material on

record. On a close scrutiny of the submissions made, the points that

fall for consideration are:

1. Whether the orders dispensing with/discontinuing the services of the petitioners on the ground that they are not satisfying the eligibility criteria laid down by UGC/AICTE is contrary to the Orders in W.P.No.17090 of 2020 & batch and not sustainable?

2. Whether it is the State Government norms or UGC/AICTE norms that governs the appointments of petitioners?

3. Whether the issuance of Notification dated 08.01.2021 for making appointments on contract

NJS,J W.P.Nos.5251 & 8088 of 2021

basis is arbitrary and issued with and issued with a view to replace the petitioners?

4. Whether the change of contractual terms excluding extendable term of service is untenable?

5. Whether the petitioners are entitled for payment of arrears of salaries with continuity of service?

6. To what relief?

Point No.1:

15. At the outset, it may be noted that there is no dispute that the

petitioners were engaged for the teaching positions in the 2nd

respondent-University, pursuant to the Notification dated

15.05.2018. The said Notification provides that the positions are

purely temporary and "shall be filled as per the norms followed by

the Universities in the State". It also provides that "the initial term of

appointment will be for a period of one academic year and

extendable for a further period subject to satisfactory performance

and requirement". The minimum prescribed qualifications for the

respective department/subject were set out in the said Notification.

Insofar as the petitioners are concerned, the minimum prescribed

qualification as per the Notification is 55% (or equivalent grade in a

point scale wherever grading system is followed) at Masters level in

the respective discipline from the recognized universities. The

candidates with NET/SLET/PH.D are preferred. There is no specific

mention in the said Notification, specifically with regard to the posts

viz., Assistant Professor/Associate Professor/Professor etc., In the

said Notification, it is also not mentioned as to whether the

appointments are intended for teaching PUC programme as sought

NJS,J W.P.Nos.5251 & 8088 of 2021

to be projected in the present Writ Petitions. In fact, as seen from

the affidavit filed by the petitioners in the earlier round of litigation,

their specific case is that though they were selected after due

satisfaction of the requirements under the Notification dated

15.05.2018, they were given appointment orders as Guest Faculty,

instead of contract faculty. A specific plea was also taken that there

are no other categories, except notified position of Assistant

Professors (contract) and the petitioners should have been

designated as Assistant Professors (contract). If the petitioners were

to be appointed as Assistant Professors, they should possess the

relevant qualifications and satisfy the norms of the universities in

terms of the Notification dated 15.05.2018. However, the

respondents have not placed any material with regard to the norms

prevailing at the time of issuance of the said Notification dated

15.05.2018. Though reliance is placed on G.O.Ms.No.14, Higher

Education (UE) Department, dated 13.12.2019, the same is of no

avail as it was relating to the position post Notification dated

15.05.2018. However, it would appear that as the petitioners were

not possessing the requisite qualifications, they were offered

teaching positions as Guest Faculty and the petitioners continued to

render services without any demur; till the university had not

extended their services in terms of the Notification dated 15.05.2018

by reviewing their performance. Though, in the counter-affidavit, a

plea was taken to the effect that the petitioners got appointments

through back door method and in the vigilance enquiry, several

illegalities and irregularities came to light, the fact remains that the

services of the petitioners were utilised by the 2nd respondent-

University till the year 2020. Be that as it may.

NJS,J W.P.Nos.5251 & 8088 of 2021

16. This Court is not required to go into the aspects whether the

appointments are valid or not, or as to whether any irregularities

took place in the appointments and it is for the University to take

appropriate action in the matter, as provided under Law. Suffice to

state, insofar as the present Writ Petitions are concerned, this Court

has to adjudicate as to whether the impugned orders dated

22.02.2021, discontinuing the services of the petitioners are not valid

and unsustainable?

17. To examine the said aspect, it would be appropriate to

mention here that in the earlier round of litigation i.e., Writ Petition

Nos.17090 of 2020, 564 of 2021 and batch, a learned Judge of this

Court, after recording the submissions made on behalf of the

University that they are ready to abide by the terms of the

agreement, but as per the subsequent Notification dated 08.01.2021

they are not going to remove the employees engaged on contract

basis subject to review, disposed of the said Writ Petitions by an

Order dated 22.01.2021, the relevant portion of which reads as

follows:

"However, in view of such submission made by Sri Suresh Anand that any appointment made in pursuance of this notification will not remove the selection of teaching faculties and the respondent University is not intended to remove the employees working on contract basis but their engagement is subject to review of their performance only, the respondents are directed to conduct review of the performance of the petitioners herein and if they are found suitable to continue based on review of performance, let the respondents take appropriate action in terms of the contract within four (4) weeks from today."

NJS,J W.P.Nos.5251 & 8088 of 2021

18. Thus, from a reading of the above order, it would be clear

that the University was ordained to conduct review of performance of

the petitioners and if they are found suitable to continue based on

review performance, their services shall be extended, in terms of the

contract. Therefore, the University or Review Committee is required

to review only the performance of the respective petitioners, and not

clothed with any authority to go into the aspect whether the

petitioners satisfy the eligibility criteria laid down by UGC/AICTE as to

the appointments as Guest Faculty. Further, in none of the

impugned orders, was there any mention with regard to

performance of any of the petitioners as to whether the same is

Good/Poor/Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory etc. No material is placed on

record as to how the performance was assessed, the criteria adopted

or procedure followed in that regard. Though, it is stated that the

Governing Council of the University approved the recommendations

of the performance review committee, neither resolution of the

council nor the said recommendations of the performance committee

were placed on record. It is settled Law that the order should reflect

the reasons and the same cannot be supplemented by way of filing

affidavits. The orders impugned in the Writ Petitions are liable to be

set aside on this ground.

19. At this juncture, it may be pertinent to state here that in the

counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the AICTE, it is specifically stated

on oath that "the AICTE has not prescribed any eligibility criteria for

Guest Faculty or Faculty appointed on temporary or contract basis".

Under such circumstances, the impugned orders stating that "the

NJS,J W.P.Nos.5251 & 8088 of 2021

services are not extended due to in-eligibility for Guest Faculty as per

the eligibility criteria laid down by UGC/AICTE" cannot be sustained.

In the light of the said position and also in view of the opinion

expressed supra, that the University/the Review Committee can

review the performance only and cannot go into the other aspects,

this Court is inclined to hold that the proceedings impugned in the

present Writ Petitions are not in accordance with the orders passed

in Writ Petition No.17090 of 2020 & batch and are liable to set aside.

20. In the light of the above conclusions, the orders impugned in

the Writ Petitions are not sustainable and the Point No.1 is

accordingly answered in favour of the petitioners.

Point No.2:

21. It is the contention of the petitioners that mode of

appointment for teaching two year Pre-University Course (equivalent

to Andhra Pradesh Intermediate Course) is based on State norms.

Such a plea was not taken in the earlier round of litigation. On the

contrary, their specific plea was that they should have been

appointed as Assistant Professors instead of Guest Faculty. It would

appear that the petitioners have taken such a stand on issuance of

G.O.Ms.No.30, dated 31.08.2020 wherein a distinction is made in

respect of teaching posts for two years PUC programme which

provides that mode of appointment is as per State Government's

norms in respect of the said posts. The said G.O., also provides that

insofar as the posts of Professors/Associate Professors are

concerned, the appointments are as per UGC norms and conduct of

screening test by the 2nd respondent-University insofar as the

Assistant Professor is concerned. Further, the Notification dated

NJS,J W.P.Nos.5251 & 8088 of 2021

08.01.2021, provides for the teaching positions, i.e., Lecturer

(contract) for two year PUC programme and Assistant Professor for

four year B.Tech programme. Thus, it is clear that as on the date of

issuance of Notification dated 15.05.2018 pursuant to which the

petitioners were appointed as Guest Faculty, there is no distinction

as sought to be projected by the petitioners that their services are

intended to be utilized for the purpose of teaching students of PUC.

Be that as it may. Insofar as the applicability of norms to the

petitioners at the relevant point are concerned, this Court, deems it

not necessary to dwell into the same in view of the conclusions

arrived at while answering Point No.1 and leave the matter for

determination, in appropriate proceedings, if so warranted. Even

assuming that the appointments of the petitioners are made without

adhering to the relevant norms prevailing at the time of their

appointment or that the appointments were made illegally etc., the

university cannot resort to any unilateral action without putting the

concerned member of the faculty on prior notice and initiate action

for dispensing with the services, as per Law. Point No.2 is answered

accordingly.

Point No.3:

22. One of the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for

the petitioners is with regard to Notification dated 08.01.2021 and

that the same was issued arbitrarily with a view to appoint persons

of the choice of University by replacing the petitioners. Except

raising such a plea, the petitioners have not substantiated the same

with reference to any material on record. It may be appropriate to

mention here that a challenge was laid to the said Notification dated

08.01.2021, in Writ Petition No.1254 of 2021. Though the

NJS,J W.P.Nos.5251 & 8088 of 2021

validity/legality or otherwise of the said Notification was not

specifically dealt with, Writ Petition No.17090 of 2020, wherein the

petitioners in the present Writ Petitions are parties, was disposed of

along with Writ Petition No.1254 of 2021 and a consent order dated

22.01.2021 was passed to the effect that their continuation would

depend upon the performance review. Further, it would also appear

that a Writ Petition No.5485 of 2021 challenging the said Notification,

dated 08.01.2021, is pending before this Court. However, the

petitioners have consented that their continuation would be based on

review of performance and therefore, it would not be open to them

to raise any pleas with regard to Notification dated 08.01.2021 and

accordingly, the contentions with reference to the same are rejected

and the point is answered against the petitioners.

Point No.4:

23. It is not in dispute that the appointments of the petitioners

were contractual. As per the Notification dated 15.05.2018 the

services are extendable subject to satisfactory performance and

requirement. If the performance is not satisfactory or there is no

requirement, the services need not be extended. Further, the nature

of contract and the terms of the same are the matters which are

within the purview of the university and it may incorporate the

terms/clauses as per its requirement and the petitioners cannot

dictate any terms or contend that change of contract is resorted to

deprive the petitioners' teaching positions in the University. For that

matter, the practice of continuation of services of faculty on contract

basis years together is deprecated by the Courts on numerous

occasions. Be that as it may. So far as the petitioners are concerned,

NJS,J W.P.Nos.5251 & 8088 of 2021

in the light of the orders dated 22.01.2021 in Writ Petition No.17090

of 2020 & batch, their performance has to be reviewed and further

action has to be taken. Therefore, other aspects need not be gone

into. Point No.4 is answered accordingly.

Point No.5:

24. Insofar as arrears of salary and continuation of petitioners'

services are concerned, it is specifically stated in the counter-affidavit

that the salaries are paid to the petitioners till passing of the orders

dated 22.02.2021. Though, a finding is recorded that the

discontinuation of the petitioners through the orders impugned in the

Writ Petitions is not sustainable, this Court is not inclined to grant

any relief with reference to salaries for the period subsequent to

22.02.2021 or arrears on the principle of 'no work - no pay'.

However, it may be clarified that the petitioners are entitled to the

benefit of Central Government's Advisory dated 20.05.2020 and

accordingly the respondents shall pay the salaries from June 2020

onwards to 22.02.2021, if the same are not already paid.

Accordingly, Point No.5 is answered.

Point No.6:

25. In the light of the conclusions arrived at supra, this Court is inclined to allow the Writ Petitions partly.

26. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings dated 22.02.2021 are

set aside. There shall be a direction to the 2nd respondent-University

to avail the services of the petitioners, as provided in the Order

dated 22.01.2021 in Writ Petition No.17090 of 2020 and Batch,

subject to their satisfactory performance etc; The performance

review of the petitioners shall be done within a period of four (4)

weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. In the

NJS,J W.P.Nos.5251 & 8088 of 2021

meanwhile, the 2nd respondent is directed to avail the services of the

petitioners. It is further made clear that this Order would not

preclude the 2nd respondent from initiating action against any of the

Guest Faculty whose appointments are found to be illegal or

irregular, by following due procedure as provided in Law.

27. Before parting with the Judgment, this Court is constrained to

observe that the appointment of faculty on contract basis would not

be in the interest of the University, teaching faculty and students'

community at large, for whose benefit the University is established.

The University and teachers, as noticed by this Court, are litigating in

the Courts instead of sub serving the educational needs of students.

Lack for funds appears to be the main reason for not making the

regular appointments. This is an area which the concerned

authorities and the Government need to focus much and make

sufficient budgetary allocations so that the laudable object of

imparting high standards of education at University level would not

remain name sake without achieving the desired objects and the

very purpose of establishing the universities like the present is not

frustrated. Perhaps, if the appointments are made on regular basis,

availing the services of Guest Faculty/contract faculty would be

minimized. The views of the Court are also fortified by the stand of

the AICTE in the counter-affidavit that "it is necessary that faculty is

recruited on regular basis in the interest of quality of technical

education and also to look after the interests of the students".

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. No costs.

__________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J 23 .03.2022.

Note: Furnish C.C. by 28.03.2022 B/o.

BLV

NJS,J W.P.Nos.5251 & 8088 of 2021

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

W.P.Nos.5251 & 8088 of 2021 Dated 23.03.2022

BLV