Ad hoc or temporary employees should not be replaced by other ad hoc or temporary employees. They should continue until regular appointments are made.

1. Through the present petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 27.03.2014 (Annexure P-6), whereby her services as Principal of Guru Nanak Dev University College, Narote Jaimal Singh, District Pathankot (hereinafter referred to as - the respondent College), where she was working on contractual basis, have been replaced by respondent no. 3., who has been given additional charge as Principal of the respondent College. The petitioner further prays for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents no. 1 and 2 to allow her to work as Principal in the respondent College till the post of Principal is filled up on regular basis.

2. The petitioner is M.A. in first division, M.Phil in first class with distinction and Ph.D. Her profile further shows that she is on the list of approved Lecturers by Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as - the respondent University) and on the list of approved Principals by the Panjab University, Chandigarh. The petitioner is further recipient of several awards in both academic, as also extra curricular fields.

3. Vide appointment letter dated 27.06.2011, the petitioner was appointed as a Principal of the respondent College (a constituent College of the respondent University). Her appointment was for the period of 11 months or till a regular appointment was made, whichever was earlier. She was to draw a consolidated salary. The appointment was offered to the petitioner only after the recommendations of the selection committee, which had selected her, had been approved by the Syndicate of the respondent University.

4. In pursuance to the above appointment, the petitioner joined as Principal of the respondent College and on expiry of the period of 11 months, on approval by the Syndicate of the respondent University and as per the orders passed by the Vice Chancellor, her services were extended for another period of 11 months or till regular appointment was made, whichever was earlier, on the same terms and conditions as her initial appointment. On the successful completion of the extension period, her services were extended for another period of 11 months, or till regular appointment was made, whichever was earlier, on the previous terms and conditions. This extension was also granted after the same had been approved by the Syndicate and as per the orders passed by the Vice Chancellor of the respondent University.

5. In pursuance of such extension in service granted in favour of the petitioner, she discharged her duties as Principal of the respondent College, but on the expiry of the second extended period, no further extension was granted to her and instead, through the impugned order dated 27.03.2014 (Annexure P-6), respondent no. 3, who was substantively working as Principal, Shaheed Ram Singh Pathania Memorial Guru Nanak Dev University College, Niari, District Pathankot, was given additional charge to work as Principal of the respondent College. The narration of facts would not be complete without noticing that the respondent University has, through advertisement no. 3 of 2014, invited applications for filling up the post of Principal of respondent College on regular basis and the present status, as informed to the Court by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent University, is that the applications received in pursuance to the advertisement are under scrutiny. The Court has further been informed that the regular appointment would be made shortly.

6. In view of the above facts, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition for the earlier referred reliefs.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned counsel for the respondent University. Respondent no. 3 was served but remained unrepresented.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner, who was working on contractual basis, could not be replaced by respondent no. 3 by