JUDGMENT
N.K. Sodhi, J.
1. Petitioner was appointed a Public Relations Officer on 1.4.1998 in the Punjabi University, Patiala (for short the University) on ad hoc basis for a period of six months or till the filling of the post on regular basis whichever was earlier. He had passed the Bachelor of Journalist and Master of Journalism and Mass Communication Examination. He claims to have long experience in the fields of Journalism and Public Relations. The University later advertised the post of Public Relations Officer alongwith various other posts inviting applications on the prescribed form. The advertisement appeared in the Daily Tribune on 28.7.1998. The following essential qualifications were prescribed for the post.
“At least a second class Master’s degree with good command over English and Punjabi and adequate knowledge of Hindi. About seven years experience in active Journalism publicity and public relations work with back ground of practical Journalism and flair for writing.
Persons possessing Master’s degree in Journalism and Mass Communication will be preferred.”
2. Petitioner who satisfied all the qualification applied for the post. The term of ad hoc appointment of the petitioner was, however, extended for, a period of six months from, 3.10.1998 upto 2.4.1999 or till the filling of the post on regular basis whichever was earlier. It is alleged that Syndicate of the University in its meeting held on 16.11.1998 resolved to fill up the post of Public Relations Officer and accordingly constituted a committee for making regular selection for the same. The Syndicate in the same meeting also took a policy decision to grant extension to all ad hoc teachers/employees of the University for the time being only upto 31.12.1998 and constituted a committed headed by the Vice Chancellor to examine/review the cases of all ad hoc employees including teachers for the grant of extension beyond 31.12.1998. In pursuance to the decision of the Syndicate the term of ad hoc appointment of the petitioner was curtailed up to 31.12.1998 and his services were terminated because the committee set up by the Syndicate did not recommend his case for further extension. After terminating the services of the petitioner, the Vice Chancellor by his order dated 27.1.1999 directed Shri Tarlochan Singh Dhandli, Assistant Public Relations Officer to look after the day to day work of the Public Relations Department of the University. The grievance of the petitioner is that instead of making regular selection in pursuance to the advertisement dated 28.7.1998 the University re-advertised the post on 19.4.1999 and substantially lowered the qualifications for the post in order to make Shri Dhandli eligible for the same. It is averred that even a person with third division was made eligible and that in place of Master’s degree in Journalism and Mass Communication, mere Diploma was substituted. According to the petitioner the qualifications were tailor-made for Shri Dhandli so that he could be appointed to the post. It is also the grievance of the petitioner that even when his ad hoc appointment had been extended upto 2.4.1999 his term was curtailed upto 31.12.1998 pending regular selection which is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Rajni Bala v. State of Haryana and Ors., 1995(4) A.I.J. 394 and Balwan Singh v. State of Haryana, 1997(1) S.L.R. 624. The prayer made in the writ petition is for quashing the order by which the extension granted to the petitioner was curtailed to 31.12.1998 and also the advertisement issued in April, 1999. Another prayer made is for a direction to the University to allow the petitioner to continue on the post of Public Relations Officer on ad hoc basis till the post is filled up on regular basis in terms of the earlier advertisement issued on 28.7.1998.
3. In the written statement filed on behalf of the University the allegations made in the writ petition have been controverted. It is admitted that the petitioner was appointed a Public Relations Officer for a period of six months or till the filling of the post on regular basis, whichever was earlier. It is further admitted that his term was extended for a period of six months on 3.10.1998 and that the post of Public Relations Officer was advertised along with other vacant posts in the leading newspapers on 28.7.1998 and that the last date for the receipt of the applications was 27.8.1998. It is averred that after the receipt of the applications for all the posts a ban was imposed by the State Government on filling up of the teaching and non-teaching vacant posts due to the financial crisis in the State and, therefore, the applications received were not processed. It is also pleaded that a letter dated 14.11.1998 was received from the Finance Secretary, Punjab suggesting that prior approval of the State Government be sought for filling up of non-teaching posts in the University. It is also the case of the University that the Syndicate in its meeting held on 16.11.1998 decided to limit the employment of all its ad hoc employees upto 31.12.1998 in view of the letter received from the State Government and, therefore, the extension granted to the petitioner was also curtailed to 31.12.1998. It is not denied that the post of Public Relations Officer was re-advertised in April, 1999. The action of the University is sought to be justified on the ground that the services of the petitioner were terminated in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the letter of his appointment.
4. Counsel for the parties have been heard.
5. As regards the prayer for quashing the advertisement re-advertising the post of Public Relations Officer in April, 1999, the same cannot be granted. It is true that the post had earlier been advertised in July, 1998 and the petitioner alongwith some others applied for the same. The University did not process the applications received in response to that advertisement because of the ban imposed by the State Government in filling up all the teaching and non-teaching vacant posts due to the financial crisis in the State. A perusal of the letter dated 14.11.1998 addressed by the Finance Secretary to the Vice Chancellor of the University bears testimony to this fact. The University was allowed autonomy in respect of filling up of teaching posts provided it adhered to the financial norms suggested in the letter. As regards the non-teaching posts, the University was told that it must seek prior approval of the Government. It appears that with the approval of the Government, the University decided to fill up the post of Public Relations Officer and re-advertised the same in April, 1999. No doubt, there is a slight difference in the essential qualifications which have now been prescribed for the post but it cannot be inferred from this that the advertisement was issued solely with the object of making Mr. Tarlochan Singh Dhandli the officiating Public Relations Officer eligible. There is nothing on the record to substantiate the allegation of the petitioner that the qualifications now prescribed were tailor-made to suit Mr. Tarlochan Singh Dhandli. The allegation has been denied in the written statement filed on behalf of the University. Moreover, the petitioner is still eligible for the post and if he has applied for the same he would be considered alongwith other candidates. The only right which inheres in the petitioner is a right to be considered for the post. He cannot insist as to what the minimum qualifications for the post should be. These are matters for the academicians and experts in the field to decide and, in our opinion, the University itself would be the best judge of what the qualifications should be for the post in question. The action of the University in re-advertising the post and not considering the applications received in response to the earlier advertisement cannot in the circumstances of the case be said to be arbitrary as was contended before us. As already observed, the applications received in response to the earlier advertisement were not considered because of the ban imposed by the State Government and a policy decision in this regard was taken by the Syndicate of the University. We have, therefore, no hesitation in rejecting the first prayer made by the petitioner.
6. The other prayer made in the writ petition is for quashing the order by which the services of the petitioner were terminated and the term of his extension curtailed till 31.12.1998. We find merit in this grievance of the petitioner. It has time and again been laid down by this Court that the services of an ad hoc/temporary employee can be terminated only on account of unsatisfactory work or if the post is not available or when a regularly selected candidate becomes available for appointment. The services of an ad hoc employee cannot be terminated without any reason when the post continues to exist and the University itself has re-advertised the same to fill it up on regular basis. An ad hoc employee cannot be allowed to be replaced by another ad hoc employee or by some one on officiating basis as that would smack of arbitrariness. Some good reason has to be stated for terminating the services of an ad hoc-temporary employee. The University being a statutory body is a ‘State’ for purposes of Article 12 of the Constitution and every action of it should be guided by public interest and if it is shown that the exercise of power is arbitrary, unjust or unfair, the same will have to be struck down. We see no reason why the services of the petitioner should have been terminated when the post was available and the University having granted extension to his tenure had to curtail the same when the Syndicate decided in the same very meeting that the post be filled up and it constituted a selection committee for the purpose. In the circumstances, the petitioner has a right to continue as a Public Relations Officer on ad hoc-temporary basis till the University makes a regular selection. Since the services of the petitioner were terminated without assigning any valid reason the same is held to be illegal and arbitrary and is hereby quashed. The view that we have taken finds support from the judgments of this Court in Rajni Bala’s case (supra) and Balwan Singh’s case (supra).
7. In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed and the action of the University in curtailing the extension of the term of the petitioner set aside and a direction issued to it to allow the petitioner to continue on ad hoc-temporary basis till a regular selection to the post of Public Relations Officers is made. There is no order as to costs.