JUDGMENT

Jaishree Thakur, J.

The instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing advertisement No.02/2012 (Annexure P-8), inviting applications to fill up 27 posts of Demonstrator on tenure basis, though the petitioner herein is already working on the same post, with a further prayer to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner herein to continue on the post of Demonstrator till the same is filled up on regular basis.

2. In brief, the facts as alleged are that the petitioner herein did her Bachelor of Dental Sciences from the respondent-University and applied for the post of a Demonstrator, for which she was called for a screening test on 19.07.2009. Thereafter, she was called for interview before the Selection Committee and was offered appointment on the post of Demonstrator (tenure basis) in Dental College, Rohtak. She was recruited on tenure basis in Dental College, Rohtak for a period of three years in the pay scale of Rs. 17440/- + Grade Pay 5400/- + DA. Consequent to the said appointment, the petitioner joined on 26.08.2009 and continued to work satisfactorily. The petitioner vide letter dated 30.08.2012 applied for issuance of experience certificate and character certificate, which was duly issued to her. The petitioner was given appointment as Demonstrator on 21.08.2009 for a period of three years and again on 04.09.2012, the tenure of the petitioner as Demonstrator was extended for a period of three months or till regular incumbent joins. The letter granting extension to the petitioner is dated 04.09.2012 (Annexure P-6). Instead of allowing the petitioner to continue in service as a Demonstrator, the respondent-University issued an advertisement No.02/2012 (Annexure P-8) inviting applications for the said post on tenure basis for a period of three years. Aggrieved against the impugned advertisement issued and the proposal to fill up the posts of Demonstrators again for a period of three years on tenure basis, the instant writ petition has been filed.

3. Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Anurag Goyal and Ms. Ojaswini Gagneja, Advocates appearing on behalf of the petitioner would contend that the law is well settled that a contractual/ad hoc appointee cannot be replaced by a similar arrangement except in the case of misconduct or inefficiency. It is submitted that the petitioner, who was appointed on tenure basis has worked satisfactorily without any complaint as would be evident from the experience certificate issued by the Head of the Department. Furthermore, the respondent-University itself had extended the tenure period of the petitioner based on her successful performance. He would urge that the respondents are again making appointment on tenure basis for a period of three years, but have also changed the qualification for the said post by making it M.D.S. instead of B.D.S., the qualification as possessed by the petitioner herein. It is further submitted that as per the minimum qualifications for Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998 (amended upto November, 2010) as issued by the Medical Council of India the minimum qualification for the post of Demonstrator is B.D.S. and, therefore, by changing the qualification, an attempt is made to oust the petitioner from the said post held by her.

4. Per contra, Mr. S. K. Garg Narwana, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Aggarwal, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents would submit that the petitioner herein was appointed on "tenure basis" as would be evident f