The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of statutory rules applicable at the time of appointment and the distinction between adhoc and regular appointments.

Hemant Gupta, J.

1. This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 10319-CAT of 2001; CWP No. 10852-CAT of 2001; CWP No. 11024-CAT of 2001; 11039-CAT of 2001; CWP No. 10320-CAT of 2001; CWP No. 10286 of 2001 and CWP No. 11978-CAT of 2004 filed by the 9 lecturers appointed on adhoc basis in the Government College of Arts, Chandigarh in the year 1989.

2. Though the challenge in each of the writ petition is to the separate order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short `the Tribunal), but all orders are co-related, passed on the basis of one or the other case. Since the facts are identical, we dispose of all the writ petitions by a common order. However, for the facility of reference, the facts are taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 10319- CAT of 2001.

3. Vide advertisement dated 5.8.1989 (Annexure P.3) posts of two lecturers in the pay scale of Rs. 700-1600/- were advertised. The petitioner Sumangal Roy applied in response to such advertisement and was selected after interview by a duly constituted Selection Committee vide letter of appointment dated 28.12.1989 (Annexure P.4).

4. At this stage, it may be noticed that the selections were made vide separate advertisements in respect of different seven posts existing in the College of Arts, whereas two posts were filled up on the basis of requisition from the Employment Exchange but all the nine candidates were appointed on the basis of the recommendations of the Selection Committee. All the petitioners joined in the year 1989/90.

5. In the letter of appointment given to the petitioner, it was mentioned that the appointment is to the post of lecturer `Group-A on adhoc basis. It was further contemplated that such appointment is for a period of six months or till the post is filled up on regular basis, through the Union Public Service Commission (for short `the UPSC), whichever is earlier and service rendered on the said post would not be counted for regular appointment.

6. Earlier, the petitioner Sumangal Roy and six other adhoc lecturers invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal by filing an Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short `the Act), seeking regularization of their services. The said application was disposed of by the Tribunal allowing the applicants to make a representation about their grievance and the same was directed to be disposed of within 30 days of receiving of representation. Subsequently,three separate Original Applications were filed before the Tribunal. In the said applications, the applicants sought directions to the respondents to consider them for regularisation and pending consideration their claim for regularisation, a direction was sought to be issued to the respondents to permit the applicants to continue on the post of lecturer with all consequential benefits. The said applications were disposed of by the Tribunal on 5.6.1991 vide order Annexure P.11, wherein relying upon the judgments of the Honble Supreme Court, the respondents were directed to permit each of the applicants to continue in service till the vacancies in question are filled up on the basis of the recommendations of the UPSC.

7. Subsequently when the respondents inserted an advertisement (Annexure P.12) on 25.3.2000 to fill up the posts of lecturer in Government College of Arts, the petitioners again invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The said applications filed by the petitioners have been dismissed by the Tribunal on different dates, which are subject matter of challenge in this group of cases.

8. Learned counsel counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that at the time of appointment of the petitioners in the year 1989-90, the statutory Rules, which were applicable in respect of advertisement were the Punjab Government College of Arts and Craft Service (Class-III) Recruitment Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as `1975 Rules). The post of lecturer in the Government C