ORDER

1. Though the matter is listed for admission, but with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

2. Heard Mr. G.A.R. Dora, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjeev Udgata, learned Advocate for opposite party No.2. Though notice was issued to opposite party No.1, but none appears when the matter is taken up.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he has passed the degree course in Architecture in first class. Pursuant to the advertisement dated 25.07.2009 for the posts of lecturer in Architecture, issued by the Principal, College of Engineering and Technology (in short "CET"), opposite party No.1 he appeared at the interview. In the said interview he was selected. On 29.08.2009 vide Annexure-2, opposite party No.1 issued an office order appointing the petitioner as a lecturer in Architecture on contractual basis. On 8.07.2010, opposite party No. 2 issued an office order appointing the petitioner with consolidated remuneration w.e.f. 1.07.2010 to 31.12.2010 or till the post was filled up by the Biju Patnaik University and Technology (in short "BPUT"), opposite party No.1 in regular manner, whichever is earlier. It is further stated that the appointment of the petitioner was extended by orders dated 8.07.2010, 24.01.2011, 26.07.2011, 21.01.2012 and 4.04.2012 vide Annexures-3 series. The further case of the petitioner is that instead of filling up the post by regular appointment as per the condition in the appointment order, an advertisement for the second time was issued on 26.05.2012 vide Annexure-4 for the same posts with same condition. The petitioner applied for the same and was selected by the select committee. Thereafter he was appointed for the current semester, 2012 up to 31.12.2012 or till filling up the posts by regular appointment as per letter dated 26.07.2012 vide Annexure-5. It is further stated that the petitioner had continuously and satisfactorily worked as a lecturer for three and half years. Instead of filling up the posts by regular appointment, a third advertisement was issued for the same posts on 19.12.2012 vide Annexure-6. The petitioner again applied for the same. He further stated that the third advertisement was issued to accommodate some candidates on extraneous consideration and the same is mala fide.

4. Pursuant to issuance of notice, opposite party No.2 entered appearance and filed a counter affidavit. The case of opposite party No.2 is that the College of Engineering and Technology is a constituent college of the Biju Patnaik University and Technology (BPUT, in short) and the same is under the administrative control of the University. The appointment of regular and temporary faculty is not under the purview of the College but under the University. The further case of the opposite party No.2 is that the engagement of contractual teacher is meant to manage the teaching load and not against any sanctioned posts of the College. The salary of the contractual teacher is drawn from the Self Sustaining Programme and not against any vacant sanctioned post of the college. The advertisement for engagement of contractual teachers is made from time to time. The academic session and teaching experience are compared amongst the continuing contractual teacher with the newcomers in order to provide better teaching facility to the students. The further case of opposite party No.2 is that the selection of contractual teachers are made by the selection committee pursuant to an open advertisement, whereafter the merit list is approved by the Vice Chancellor of the University before issuance of engagement order in favour of the selectee. It is further stated that the petitioner is a Bachelor in Architecture, who appeared in the interview pursuant to the advertisement vide Annexure-6 to the writ petition, but was not selected. The candidates selected in the said interview possess Master Degree in Architecture and hence better qualified than the petitioner. F