ORDER :

Petition herein has been filed with the following prayer clause :-

“A) By an appropriate order or direction, the impugned order/correspondence dated 27.05.2023 (Annex.23) may kindly be quashed and set aside, and,

(B) By an appropriate order or direction, the respondent may be directed to allow the petitioners to continue on the post of Assistant Director (Physical Education).

(C) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

2. Petitioners, being ex guest faculty members, are before this Court having remained unsuccessful after competing for the regular appointment on the post of Assistant Director (Physical Education), which was advertised by advertisement dated 1.8.2017 (Annex.25).

3. Succinctly put the controversy herein lies in a very narrow compass i.e. whether a guest faculty member has right to continue merely because the post, on which he was earlier working continues to be vacant, notwithstanding that the University is not in need of further services ?

4. Brief facts first, as pleaded. The petitioners had been working from 2009 onwards as gust faculty on the posts of Assistant Director (Physical Education). They were working against the sanctioned post lying vacant since 1999. There are/were four sanctioned posts against which two regular appointments have been made and two are currently still vacant. However, the respondents hastily terminated their services on 27.05.2023. The petitioners submitted a detailed representation on 30.05.2023, but the university did not consider the same, leading them to file the present petition.

5. Concededly, the petitioners prior to the advertisement (supra) were continuing for a fairly long period to serve as members of the guest faculty as the regular appointees were not available. Once the advertisement was published, the petitioners also participated in the selection process but were not found suitable enough and thus remained unsuccessful to be appointed on the regular posts.

6. After two regular appointments have been made, it transpires that out of the four regular posts, two posts are still lying vacant and that is what has made the petitioners to approach this Court to seek a mandamus that the said two posts be allowed to be filled by allowing them to continue on guest faculty. In fact, this is second foray of the petitioners before this Court seeking such a mandamus as they had earlier filed another writ petition bearing SBCWP No.8637/2016, which was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench presided over by my learned brother Dinesh Mehta, J. vide order dated 08.05.2023 (Annex.21). 7. The relevant of the order dated 08.05.2023 (Annex.21), being opposite, is reproduced here in below:-

“6. This Court is of the considered view that it is prerogative of the respondent – University to go for appointment on two posts or for four posts and this Court cannot issue mandamus to the University to continue petitioners’ services, when regularly selected candidates have joined.

7. Be that as it may.

8. Considering that vide letter dated 12.09.2022, the University has sought permission to fill up two more posts of Assistant Director (Physical Education), it appears that the University is in requirement of the post of Assistant Director, on which the petitioners are continuing as Guest Faculties.

9. In view of above, the present writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the petitioners to file a representation before the competent authority of the respondent – University for continuation of their engagement.

10. In case any such representation is preferred by the petitioners, the respondent – University shall consider the same in accordance with law, more particularly in the light of letter dated 12.9.2022 sent by it to the State Government, which establishes that the University is in need of four Assistant Directors.

11. It is made clear that aforesaid di