JUDGMENT :

NISHA M. THAKORE, J.

1. By way of this group of Letters Patent Appeals, original respondents State challenged the CAV Common Judgment dated 07.09.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge (Coram: J.B. Pardiwala, J.) in writ petition being Special Civil Application No.8152 of 2015 and allied matters.

2. Brief facts as emerged from the record are summarized as under:

2.1 The original writ applicants were employed by respondent State on the post of Lecturers on ad hoc and/or contractual basis in the Government Engineering Colleges and Government Diploma Engineering Polytechnics. The aforesaid institutions are governed by All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as “AICTE Act”). Pursuant to the instructions received by the AICTE, the posts of Lecturer in Degree Engineering Colleges has been redesignated as Assistant Professor.

2.2 Since there has been some delay in undertaking the recruitment for the post of Assistant Professor, the State at the relevant point of time decided to fill up by ad hoc appointment against vacant sanctioned posts of Lecturers in the Government Degree Engineering Colleges and Government Diploma Engineering Polytechnics. Such appointments have continued for a period of almost 20 years. It is the case of the writ applicants that the ad hoc Lecturers appointed prior to May, 2008, were given regular pay-scales and all the regular benefits of annual increments, vacation, leave, LTC etc. Their earlier pay-scale Rs.2200-4000, was revised to Rs.8000-275-13500, grade pay of Rs.6000/5400 w.e.f. 01.01.2006. The writ applicants are appointed on ad hoc basis between May, 2008 and February, 2009. It is their case that the writ applicants are only paid basic pay of Rs.8000/- in the pay-scale of Rs.8000-275-13500 and are not being paid other benefits like annual increment, vacations, leave, LTC etc. Thus, it was alleged that the State Government had created classes within the class of ad hoc Lecturers and the writ applicants are discriminated against in spite of doing the same work as done by the ad hoc lecturers and qualified for the posts, the writ applicants were constrained to approach this Court.

2.3 In the case of some of the writ applicants, the State proceeded to issue termination order which led them to file writ application being Special Civil Application No.5797 of 2009, which ultimately came to be decided by the Division Bench in Letters Patel Appeal No.2986 of 2010 by order dated 24.03.2011. While disposing of the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeal, the Division Bench of this Court considering the fact that ad hoc Lecturers were continue since last 10 to 20 years, protected their service by interim order whereby State was directed to fill up all the posts by publishing advertisement by regular appointment and till such posts are filled up by regular appointment, the ad hoc Lecturers were continued to be in service. The Division Bench further held that in case, if the posts are filled up through regular appointment, then the Ad hoc lecturers may be accommodated against some other vacant posts, for which no advertisement is issued. In the case of ad hoc Lecturers whose service were terminated, the Division Bench directed to accommodate them on ad hoc basis against the posts which are not being filled up or advertised. If in case, no posts were vacant to accommodate them, then their service was directed to be terminated. While issuing such direction, Division Bench further clarified that said ad hoc Lecturers shall have no right to continue against any particular post and leave it to make room as and when posts are filled up on regular basis. In view of the directions, the writ applicants and similarly situated ad hoc Lecturers were continued in service on the basis of order which was passed by the Director of Technical Education.

2.4 At the stage of filing the writ petiti