ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

"I) A writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned advertisement dated 26.05.2022 (Annexure-P/15) issued by the respondent No.4.

II) A writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to continue to work as Guest Faculties.

III) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case."

2 . It is the case of the petitioners that they were working in the respondent's department as Guest Faculty having a long experience. They were initially inducted as a Guest Faculty and worked till the end of the academic session. But in the new academic session, the respondents have not considered the case of the petitioners for appointment. It is submitted that they were working since last more than 10 years as Guest Faculty with utmost honesty and sincerity and now they are being discontinued. It is submitted that the law with respect to guest faculty is considered and settled by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Yadav and Others Vs. M.P State and Others (Writ Petition No.6159 of 2022) and other connected matters vide order dated 26.04.2022 as well as in the case of Saurabh Singh Baghel and others Vs. State of M.P and others reported in 2019 (1) MPLJ 643, whereby it is categorically held that the guest faculty cannot be replaced by another guest faculty or until regular appointments are made. The petitioners have prayed that the similar relief may be extended to them. Therefore, the petition was filed.

3. Counsel for the respondent/State has objected to the averments of the writ petition pointing out the fact that the appointment of the petitioners was contractual in nature for a limited period. It is nowhere mentioned in the writ petition that the petitioners are being replaced by another guest faculty. In absence of any averment with respect to replacement of the petitioners with other guest faculty, no interim protection can be granted to the petitioners because the appointment of the petitioners was contractual in nature. The judgement passed by this Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Yadav (supra) is also to the extent that in case the petitioners have worked in the previous session and are being replaced by another set of contractual employees. The employer is having all rights to remove a contractual employee like petitioners on completion of his contract period considering the strength of students and requirement of work. But, in absence of any cogent explanation or justification regarding replacement of the petitioners, no relief can be extended. He has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

4. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

5. Admittedly, the appointment of the petitioners as a guest faculty was on contractual basis. It is not disputed that the petitioners have not been replaced by another set of contract teachers. Merely working for a temporary period does not entitle candidates like the petitioners to claim indefeasible right of continuation of their work. The judgement passed in the case of Pradeep Kumar Yadav (supra) is of no help to the petitioners as the same speaks of the fact that the candidates should have worked in the previous session and they should not be replaced by another set of contractual employee/guest faculty. There should be a clear mentioning of the fact that petitioners are guest faculty/ contractual employee are being replaced by another guest faculty because it is a settled proposition of law that a guest faculty cannot be replaced by another set of guest faculty. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate that they have been replaced by another set of contractual employee or guest faculty. The employer is having a right to remove a guest faculty/contractual employee on