Jagdish Bhalla, J. - (1.) THE two writ petitions raise the same question of fact and law and hence are being disposed of by this common Judgment.
(2.) BY means of these two writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay University Grant Commission pay scale i.e. Rs. 2,200-4,000 and all other admissible benefits which the permanent Lecturers are getting and have also prayed for the quashing of the Government Order dated 22.7.1986 contained in Annexure No. 3 to Writ Petition No. 4812 of 1988, by which a novel method has been adopted by the State Government by calling upon the qualified unemployed teachers to work on voluntary basis for taking Lecturers in the classes. This has been done by the State Government for the reason that there are vacancies of Lecturers. In Writ Petition No. 4812 of 1988, one prayer is with regard to continuation of the petitioners till regular selections are being made by the U. P. Public Services Commission. However, in the other writ petition, i.e., Writ Petition No. 27683 of 1993 instead of above prayer, it has been prayed that the respondents may not hold selection on the post on which the petitioners are working in pursuance of the advertisement contained in Annexure-12 of that writ petition. It has been submitted that since 1971 and till date, admittedly less than 50 appointments have been made in Colleges where at the present 450 vacancies are lying vacant. The U. P. Public Services Commission made an advertisement in the year 1981 but the said advertisement was cancelled and no selection could be held. The ad hoc teachers in the Government Degree Colleges and Post-Graduate Colleges have been regularised in accordance with the provisions of U. P. Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointments (on Posts within the Purview of U. P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred as to the Regularisation Rules, 1979). The State Government under the aforesaid Regularisation Rules, 1979 again regularised all the ad hoc Lecturers working in the Government Colleges who were given appointment on or before 1.5.1983. Thus, 307 teachers under the Regularisation Rules, 1979 (Amended Rules 1981) were regularised. Since 450 ad hoc teachers were regularised, therefore, the State Government in order to deny the benefit of regularisation to the ad hoc teachers, started a new practice of giving appointments only for 120 days and after artificial breaks, fresh appointments were issued to those teachers. The ad hoc teachers appointed for 120 days approached this Court by means of several writ petitions and some of them directly approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Garhwal Region Students Union of Government Degree Colleges also approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition arising out of the judgments of this Court as also in the matter of Garhwal Region Students Union of Government Degree Colleges directed the State Government to fill all the vacancies immediately. It has been emphatically argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that to circumvent the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court instead of filling-up the vacancies and with a view to deny the benefits of regularisations to ad hoc teachers, a novel method was adopted by the State Government by calling upon unemployed educated qualified youth to come forward voluntarily and accept giving lectures at the rate of Rs. 15 per lecture with a rider of minimum of 12 lectures and maximum of 18 lectures per week which was subsequently amended by a Government Order to a minimum of 18 lectures and maximum of 21 lectures. This, accordingly to learned counsel for the petitioners, straightaway amounts to engaging qualified youth as teachers to deprive them of the status, pay scale and feeling of security of being permanent lecturers/teachers. It has been argued that this action of the Government amounts to exploiting the unemployed youth to accept something better than to be unemployed.
(3.) WE are of the view that no Government particularly a WElfare State, and India being a WElfare State, can even think of formulating such a plan. WE are further of the view that despite the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in S.L.P. (Civil) 9569 of 1983 and 6906 of 1983 directing the State Government to take immediate steps to fill-up the vacancies against which some of the petitioners were appointed on ad hoc basis and in accordance with the relevant recruitment rules through the Public Service Commission, the State Government instead of filling-up the vacancies in accordance with law, has encouraged ad hocism which has been deprecated by the Apex Court, thereby a wrong has been done by the respondents by inviting applications from the trained graduate to act like a daily-wager on voluntary basis. It has been directed by the Apex Court that petitioners who are working on such posts whether under orders of the Court or otherwise shall continue to hold the post on ad hoc basis till the vacancies are filled-up and they shall cease to hold the post immediately on regular appointments being made any salary will be paid up-to date. The petitioners are still working as teachers in their institutions and are being paid wages according to Government Order dated 22.7.1986.;