Navin Kumar Agarwal and Others vs Gurukul Kangri University and Another

Barin Ghosh, C. J.

The Respondent University has been permitted by AICTE to impart engineering and technical education under self-finance scheme. Such permission makes it amply clear that AICTE is not to fund the University for imparting such education. In addition thereto, the University is imparting education, in respect whereof, it can award degrees notified by the University Grants Commission u/s 22 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. The University has appointed, on regular basis, lecturers to impart education to the students enrolled with the University. In addition to that, the University has engaged contractual lecturers for imparting education.

Petitioners were engaged as such contractual lecturers. After the Sixth Pay Commission report was implemented by the University, Petitioners also requested the University to give benefit thereof to them. University refused to give the same to the Petitioners. Principally for that purpose, Petitioners approached this Court by filing the present writ petition on 23rd October, 2009. Subsequent thereto, the contract period of the Petitioners came to an end. Those were not renewed. Instead, on 11th July, 2010, an advertisement was published by the University seeking response for being appointed as contractual lecturers. In the circumstances, Petitioners amended their writ petition. While amending the writ petition, Petitioners sought continuity of their contractual appointment, until appointments on regular basis are made, and, consequentially, challenged the said advertisement dated 11th July, 2010, by which, contractual employees were sought to be replaced by contractual employees.

In the counter affidavit filed by the University, it has been made clear that inasmuch as the University is imparting education in engineering and technical field on self-finance basis, it is not possible for the University to give any permanent appointment to any teacher over and above those permanent appointments already given by the University, inasmuch as, the University cannot take a chance and assure that, even in future, it shall be in a position to cater to the needs of the same number of students as the University is presently getting. Inasmuch as, engineering and technical education is being imparted by the University under self-finance scheme, unless there is a law preventing the University from doing so, the University should be deemed to be entitled to impart such education also not through permanent lecturers. There being no law, compelling the University to engage only permanent lecturers for that purpose, it is open to the University to take recourse to contractual appointments. The fact remains that contractual appointments of the Petitioners have come to an end. A writ court is incompetent to direct a party to a contract to enter into a contract with another party or to extend the contract, which has already come to an end. We are, accordingly, not in a position to direct the University to continue the contract of the Petitioners, as the requirement of the law is that, in order to make a contract valid, there must be free will of the contracting parties. It goes without saying that, when there is no such free will, the contract cannot be seem to have come into existence. When a person is entitled to enter into a contract with free will, without breaching the existing contract, it goes without saying that he is entitled to enter into a new contract, not only with the party with whom he had a previous contract, but with also a new party and, accordingly, in law, there is no bar on the part of a contractual employer to replace his contractual employees by entering into new contracts with new contractual employees, after the contracts with the previous contractual employees have come to an end.

It was contended by the Petitioners that because they have been shown as lecturers of the University, the permission by AICTE is still continuing. In other words, that number of lecturers, represented by the Petitioners, is a sine qua non for continuation of effective education in those two departments. From the conduct of the University, it appears that there is substance in the said contentions, otherwise the University would not have published the advertisement dated 11th July, 2010. Inasmuch as, by an order of this Court, recourse to the said advertisement could not be taken in respect of that number of lecturers as the Petitioners were, it, therefore, appears to us that the University would be requiring that number of lecturers and, accordingly, would be required to publish a fresh advertisement therefor, when we direct the University to consider the applications to be made by the Petitioners also. We also feel that when contractual lecturers would be rendering same or similar duty as a regular / permanent lecturer is required to do, it would be appropriate on the part of the University to pay contractual lecturers also, such remuneration, which the University has agreed to pay to the regular / permanent lecturers.

The writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of.