Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

The Issue Involved In These Two Writ ... vs Unknown on 23 March, 2022

Author: Ninala Jayasurya

Bench: Ninala Jayasurya

     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.
2
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 3 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 4 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 5 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, 6 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 7 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.

8

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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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.

14

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." 15

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 16 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 17 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 18 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, 19 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 20 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 21 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