IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 28.01.2025 Rashmi Gera and others .... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present: Mr. Bhupinder Malik, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Ms. Tanushree Gupta, DAG, Haryana.

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (ORAL)

The petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the speaking orders, dated 18.01.2025, Annexures P-35 to P-38, as also the consequent order of relieving the petitioners from service, dated 20.01.2025, Annexure P-39, passed by the Principal of the respondent College. Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought directing the respondents to allow the petitioners to continue working as Extension Lecturers till there is workload available in the subjects of Computer Science and Mathematics in the College.

2. Briefly, as per facts apparent on record, the petitioners are ineligible to be appointed as Assistant Professors in Government colleges as per the qualifications prescribed under the Haryana Education (College Cadre) Group-B Service Rules, 1986. The petitions filed by them seeking appointment/adjustment were disposed of along with a batch of petitions, with lead case CWP No.16931 of 2019, with a direction to decide their representations and consider them for engagement in case workload increased. Pursuant thereto, the Principal engaged them despite being ineligible, and they had been working continuously ever since.

2.1. Meanwhile, the Department issued policy guidelines regarding engaging Eligible Extension Lecturers in Government Colleges purely on work requirement basis, dated 04.03.2020, Annexure P-20. The Policy requires that only such persons shall be engaged as Extension Lecturers who fulfill the qualifications/eligibility as per the Statutory Service Rules applicable to the Assistant Professors in Government colleges. The Policy was later replaced by policy guidelines dated 02.11.2023, Annexure P-24, which had the similar stipulation so far as engagement of Extension Lecturers in Government colleges was concerned. It also required that non-qualified persons engaged by the Principals shall be removed after its coming into force.

2.2. It is also apparent on record that a Division Bench of this Court while deciding the LPA No.592 of 2022 titled Neeraj Bhardwaj alias Neeraj v. State of Haryana and others, issued directions that ineligible Extension Lecturers cannot be allowed to continue in service which are as follows:

“…..13. Teaching in Colleges is a responsible job. If persons do not possess minimum qualification laid down by the UGC i.e. NET/Ph.D., one can only imagine the plight of the students who are being taught by such unqualified persons. Those candidates who have been appointed under the earlier Policies by the various Colleges and have not even acquired the minimum qualifications uptill now, cannot be allowed to be continued. This Court would not sympathize on this aspect. However, those who have acquired the qualifications, they need to be protected till regular selections are made.

14. In view of the aforesaid, we do no accede to the request made by learned counsel for the appellants that those who do not possess the minimum UGC qualifications should be allowed to be continued till the regular selections are made.

2.3. In compliance with the directions issued, and in the light of the stipulation in the Policy guidelines, dated 04.03.2020, replaced by later Policy dated 02.11.2023, the impugned orders relieving the petitioners from service have been passed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners have a right to continue in service in terms of the Policy guidelines, because the academic session has not come to an end, and on account of their disengagement students’ interests will be adversely affected. It has also been contended that the petitioners have wrongly been removed in terms of the Policy guidelines, dated 04.03.2020, though the