Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) PETITIONER in first writ petition was appointed as Senior Demonstrator on urgent temporary basis by order dated 27.01.2010 for a period of six months. In a like manner, Petitioners in second writ petition were appointed as Assistant Professors in Gynecology on urgent temporary basis by order dated 16.02.2010 for a period of six months.
(2.) SINCE both writ petitions involve identical question for adjudication, same were heard together and are being decided by this common order. Petitioners' services were terminated by Respondents on expiry of period of six months, respectively on 21.07.2010 and 11.08.2010, but CW12490/2010 CW11531/2010 simultaneously a short -term advertisement was issued by them inviting fresh applications seeking to make appointments again on urgent temporary basis. This Court was persuaded to pass interim order by which operation of fresh advertisement was stayed and Respondents were directed to continue Petitioners on posts so held by them till further orders.
(3.) CONTENTION of learned Counsel for Petitioners is that one set of adhoc employees cannot be substituted by another set of adhoc employees. If this is allowed to be done, it would give rise to practice of pick and choose and cause hostile discrimination qua those who are already appointed and are replaced by fresh set of candidates. There will be no stability in service provided by them and that so long as posts remain vacant whether under a scheme of otherwise, and Petitioners are available for offering their services on strength of their appointments made after following similar process, Respondents cannot be permitted to resort to same mechanism of inviting fresh applications and then make fresh appointments because law is settled that one set of adhoc employees cannot be substituted by another set of adhoc employees.;