- (1.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are working as Lecturers on contractual basis since December 2006. They are working honestly, sincerely, diligently and to the satisfaction of the respondents. Never any notice has been given to the petitioners for their unsatisfactory work. Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Piara Singh and others, 1992 AIR(SC) 2130 and submitted that one ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee. The petitioners are appointed on contractual basis and now the respondents are terminating the services of the petitioners and the petitioners are replacing by appointing other lot of similarly situated contractual employee/Lecturer. Experienced hand teacher will go away and the fresh lot of Lecturers will be appointed. This will also cause loss to the students for whom the University has been established.
(2.) It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that out of the total contractual basis Lecturers, the petitioners' services are going to be terminated, whereas, 27 similarly situated contractual basis Lecturers are going to be appointed by the respondents. This fact has been highlighted in paragraph 20 of the memo of the petition. Thus, there is discrimination of the petitioners from the similarly situated other candidates.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent State has nothing much to submit because contesting respondents are respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5.;