DR. SHRUTI KANGA, WIFE OF DR. SURAJ KUMAR SINGH Vs. CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF JHARKHAND THROUGH ITS VICE CHANCELLOR, RATU LOHARDAGA ROAD, PO BRAMBE, PS MANDAR, DIST. RANCHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both the writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the legality of advertisement issued on 02.07.2016 whereby applications for temporary engagement of Assistant Professors at various centers in the Central University of Jharkhand were invited.

(2.) Heard.

(3.) Briefly stated, the petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 3782 of 2016 were selected pursuant to advertisement issued on 16.06.2011 and they were appointed as Assistant Professors (Guest Faculty) on contractual basis. Petitioners in W.P.(S) No.3783 of 2016 were also appointed on the post of Assistant Professor in the same manner. Their contractual period was subsequently extended from time to time. It is pleaded that vide Resolution dated 08.05.2015 of Deans Committee further extension of contractual period for 11 months, in terms of Clause 11 of the U.G.C. Regulations 2010, was granted and consequently the petitioners' contractual period was extended for further 11 months. On 02.07.2016, an advertisement for walk-in-interview was issued for engagement, on purely temporary basis, on payment of consolidated remuneration of Rs. 25,000/, per month. Mr. Anil Kumar, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners, when advertisement dated 02.07.2016 was issued, were already getting remuneration @ Rs. 35,000/and in terms of a decision dated 08.05.2015 of the Deans Committee they were to continue on the post of Assistant Professor and while so, they did not participate in selection process pursuant to the advertisement issued on 02.07.2016. Referring to the decision in "Hargurpratap Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others" reported in (2007) 13 SCC 292 and decisions in "Barinder Kaur Vs. Guru Nanak Dev University" reported in (2015) 0 supreme (P & H) 1031 and "Pradeep Navinbhai Patel and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Others" reported in (2014) 0 Supreme (Guj) 47, the learned Senior counsel contends that before regular appointments are made the petitioners cannot be removed from service, as it would amount to replacing one set of adhoc employees by another set of adhoc employees. The learned Senior counsel has further contended that appointment of the Assistant Professors pursuant to advertisement dated 02.07.2016 is in the teeth of Clause 18 (6) of the Statute of the Central University of Jharkhand.