Temporary appointments do not confer an indefeasible right to continue, but prior case law allows continuation until regular selections are made.

ORDER :

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.

Heard finally with the consent of both the parties.

The present writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 assails the order dated 13.09.2023 passed in Writ Petition No. 9240/2020 by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 2/University had issued an advertisement dated 30.08.2018 inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor / Lecturer as Guest Faculty. After undergoing due process, appellants were appointed on the post of Assistant Professors/Lecturers as Guest Faculty vide order dated 03.01.2019 passed by respondent No.2. All the appellants possessed requisite eligibility conditions for appointment on the aforesaid posts as prescribed by the University Grant Commission (UGC). They were appointed as guest faculty against the vacant post of Assistant Professor/Lecturer in different subjects on honorarium basis of Rs. 1,500/-per working day and monthly honorarium minimum 30,000/-. Their engagement was extended from time to time. Thereafter in the year 2020, another advertisement was issued for the post on which the appellants were already working as guest faculty. Appellants had already put in 3 years of engagement. Being aggrieved, appellants filed Writ Petition No. 9240 of 2020 challenging the advertisement dated 30.05.2020.

3. The contention of the appellants before the learned Single Judge was that they have been selected for the aforementioned posts after undergoing due selection process. They were selected and given appointment and were continuing till issuance of the advertisement in the year 2020. Appellants are not back door entrants. The respondents had issued advertisement in the year 2020 for the posts on which the appellants were working. The contention before the learned Single Judge was that the appellants had already earned experience in teaching therefore, issuance of advertisement is arbitrary, unjust, illegal and liable to be set aside. The appellants are also eligible for salary as per the UGC guidelines. The fresh advertisements intends to replace the adhoc arrangement by another adhoc arrangement without filling the regular vacant post. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, prayer was made to allow the appellants to continue to work on the post already held by them.

4. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by passing the following order :

''14. In the present case, vide advertisement dated 30.08.2018, the petitioners were invited to work as Guest Faculty in various subjects. Thereafter, vide order dated 03.01.2019, the petitioners were appointed for the period of two months i.e. up to February, 2019, however, it was extended up to 30.06.2019, thereafter, for further six months from 06.07.2019. The appointments were purely contractual. So far as the impugned advertisement is concerned, again petitioners were invited for engagement of Guest Faculty in various subjects. The petitioners are only four in number, but there is a requirement of engagement of other teachers on contract basis as per the students – teachers ratio as per the UGC Regulations. Since the advertisement has been issued to engage other visiting Faculty, therefore, the action of the respondent is justifiable. Initially, the appointment of the petitioners came to an end. There is no bar in the new advertisement for applying for the said post, however, the impugned advertisement was issued in the year 2020 and more than three years have passed. Now the policy has been changed instead of appointing Guest Faculties the colleges and universities are going for Visiting Faculties, hence, no writ can be issued in favour of the petitioners.

15. In view of the above, Writ Petition stands dismissed.''

5. Being aggrieved, appellants have filed the present writ appeal on the same grounds which were raised bef