Hon'ble ASOPA, J.—Since common question of facts and law are involved in these cases, relating to the termination of the services of the petitioners who were appointed as substitutes under the Shikshak Adheyatavriti Yojna which were given to them on purely contractual temporary basis as per the circular dated 4.7.2008, therefore, all the cases which have been reserved on different dates after hearing arguments, clubbed together and are being decided by this common order.

2. The facts of SBCWP No. 5238/2009 are taken for deciding these writ petitions.

3. On 4.7.2008, the State Government issued a circular for implementing the Shikshak Adheyatavriti Yojna for being appointed on the post of College Lecturers purely on contractual temporary basis in place of the Lecturers who were availing academic leave. As per Point No. 1 in the directions for imple-mentation of the Scheme, the Selection Committee was to be constituted comprising of one subject expert and Secretary of the College Development Society or its representative, and after scrutinishing the applications considering their qualifications as per Schedule `A' the suitability was to be adjudged as per Schedule ` B'. Point No. 3 of the aforesaid Policy is for execution of the undertaking on Rs. 10/- non-judicial stamp as prescribed in Schedule `C' and further, Point No. 5 relates to the discharge of the substitute (s) on completion of the prescribed period. It is stated in the writ petition that the Lecturers are still on academic leave but despite that, the petitioners have been discharged from the services during the continuation of the academic session keeping in view the undertaking given by them which is arbitrary.

4. In reply, the Government has justified their action on the basis of circular dated 4.7.2008. On the issue of non-availability of Lecturers who had gone for academic leave no specific reply has been filed and there is no specific denial of the fact that no post of College Lecturer will remain vacant on 1.7.2009.

5. The submission of the counsel for the petitioners is that now the respondents will against appoint substitutes from 1.7.2009. Counsel for the petitioners have further submitted that the controversy raised in these writ petitions is covered by the controversy decided in the case of Vidhyarthi Mitras regarding appointment of Teachers in primary and upper primary/secondary schools, except the point of undertaking and on undertaking, submission of the counsel for the petitioners is that there cannot be any estoppel against the fundamental/statutory rights and further, furnishing of the undertaking is to be viewed from the angle that the respondents were having upper hand over the hand of the petitioners therefore, there was no equal bargaining and it cannot be said to be undertaking given with free consent and in this connection, reliance has been placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited and another vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly and another (1986) 3 SCC 156).

6. Mr. Yadav, Addl. Advocate General submits that having given undertaking the petitioners are estopped from challenging the termination of their services and the undertaking is not opposed to the public policy. He placed reliance on State of Rajasthan and others vs. Basant Nahata (2005) 12 SCC 77), and the judgment dated 5.5.2009 of this Court in Anil Kumar Kothari vs. State & Ors. (SBCWP No. 4276/2008).

7. I have gone through record of the writ petitioners and further considered the rival submission of counsel for the parties.

8. Before proceeding further, it is useful to quote the relevant portion of the circular dated 4.7.2008 which is as under:

^^dk;kZy; vk;qDr] dkyst f'k{kk] jktLFkku] t;iqj

Øekad % ,Q20¼Vh-vkj-,Q-½ ys[kk@vkdkf'k@HkhyokM+k@2003@109 fnukad 4-7-2008

izkpk;Z]

;w-th-lh- ls lEcfU/kr]

leLr egkfo|ky;]

jktLFkku

fo"k;%&f'k{kd v/;ko`fr ;kstuk ds vUrxZr vdkneh vodk'k ij x;s O;k[;krkvksa ds fjDr inksa ij ^^lafonk ds vk/kkj ij** fu;qfDr gsrqA

lan