By the Court.—Dr. Bheem Rao Ambedkar University, Agra is a University established under the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (herein after referred to as the Agra University). Two types of courses are offered by the University, (a) regular courses for which faculty members are appointed against posts which have been created by the State Government covered by Section 60 E of the State Universities Act (herein after referred to as substantive posts), (b) the University also run certain courses under Self Financed Scheme for which appointment of faculty members has been provided for under Statute 11.17 of the First Statute of the Agra University.

2. These teachers are appointed on contract basis on year to year basis. These writ petitions pertain to the faculty members appointed in respect of self-finance courses only. Therefore, provisions applicable to the faculty members to be appointed under self-financing scheme alone are being referred to.

3. Writ petition No. 20250 of 2012 (Ajay Yadav and others v. State of U.P. and others) has been filed by 19 petitioners, all of whom claim to have been appointed on contract basis for imparting education in respect of self-finance course run by the Agra University. Petitioners claim to have been appointed with reference to Advertisements which were published in the year 1999, dated 21.2.2000, dated 15.8.2001, dated 11.7.2002, dated 11.7.2004 and dated 10.1.2008. It is the case of the petitioners that their term of appointment is renewable on year to year basis. In the year 2009 an extension of their term of appointment was granted by the University for a period of three years in one stretch. The University, however, published Advertisement No. 01/RW-12 for making contractual appointment on the post of faculty member to impart education in respect of self-finance courses. Since the claim of the petitioners for renewal of their contract was not considered and the University had proceed to hold direct recruitment, petitioners filed the aforesaid petitions.

4. In the writ petitions initially an interim order was granted whereby selection proceedings in terms of the Advertisement were stayed but on 8.10.2012, the interim order was modified. The University was permitted to complete the process of selection with the rider that the claim of every petitioner for extension of the term shall be considered before completing the process of selection by direct recruitment.

5. In compliance to the modified interim order of the Court, the University did publish an Advertisement on 12.10.2012 affording an opportunity to all such persons who did not apply with reference to the earlier Advertisement to submit their applications latest by 22.10.2012. The selection proceedings were held and on the recommendation of the Selection Committee which met in the month of November on different dates, fresh contractual appointment was offered to the applicants with reference to the Advertisement No. 01/RW-12 including some of the petitioners. This appointment however was limited for a period of six months i.e. till the end of the academic session, to be precise up to 30th June, 2013.

6. The University published a fresh Advertisement dated 27.4.2013 for the purposes of making contractual appointment against all faculty post for courses run under self-financed scheme. This fresh advertisement has been challenged by means of writ petition Nos. 26211 of 2013, 29538 of 2013, 29540 of 2013, 32726 of 2013, 28159 of 2013 and 32320 of 2013. The petitioners in these writ petitions are the persons who were offered contractual appointment for six months with reference to the Advertisement No. 01/RW-12. They seek quashing of the fresh advertisement of 2013 as well as a writ of mandamus to permit them to continue as contractual Lecturers for a term of five years.

7. Writ petition Nos. 26223 of 2013, 37812 of 2013, 37810 of 2013, 32487 of 2013, 34908 of 2013 and 35597 of 2013 have been filed by those persons who were not se