Hemant Gupta, J. - (1.) The petitioners have invoked the contempt jurisdiction of this Court while alleging violation of the order passed by this Court on 11.4.2005 in Civil Writ Petition No. 2197 of 2005.
(2.) It is the case of the petitioners that they were appointed on adhoc basis as Guest Faculty Lecturers in M.R. Government College, Fazilka. The petitioners were not being paid salary according to the pay scale which was being given to the regular incumbents nor were being paid the salary for the vacation period. The respondents also relieved them at the end of academic session. Therefore, the petitioners filed the aforesaid writ petition, inter -alia, praying for the minimum pay scale for the post of lectures and payment of consequential benefits including the salary for the vacation period. On 11.4.2005, this Court allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioners, but after returning a finding that such Guest Faculty
(3.) Lecturers are being appointed by the Principal of individual Colleges either through advertisement or through the Employment Exchange and had themselves conduct the process of selection. The appointment is not as per the provisions contained in Part XIV Chapter II of the Constitution of India that i.e. through Public Service Commission. It was also found that the funds for wages were being drawn from the Parent Teacher Association and thus, the employment is in the nature of private contract between the Parent Teacher Association on the one hand and the petitioners on the other hand. After returning such finding, the respondents were permitted to dispense with the services of the petitioners in case their services are no longer required. However, it was not open to the respondents to substitute the petitioners with other for the same purpose for which the petitioners have been engaged. The relevant directions read as under: It will, however, not be opened to the respondents to substitute the petitioners with others for the same purpose for which the petitioners have/had been engaged. As a matter of clarification, it may be stated that the nomenclature of the substitutes would be irrelevant, in other words engagement of employees as a matter of temporary arrangement (ad hoc, stop -gap, current duty, part -time, contractual, temporary etc.) so as to replace the petitioners, would not be permissible. In case the respondents desired to take work, in the same fashion as it is/was being taken from the petitioners, it would be imperative for the respondents to allow the petitioners to continue in their present assignments; or to re -induct them, in case their services have already been dispensed with. This direction will, however, be subject to one over -riding condition, namely, that it would be opened to the respondents to hold a regular process of selection by inviting applications from all eligible candidates.;