Supreme Court of India was dealing with the petition challenging the judgment and order dated 8th February, 2017, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh along with companion matters, thereby allowing the appeals filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh as well as the Jan Bhagidari Samiti and setting aside the common judgment and order dated 29th September, 2016 passed by the learned single judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
Brief Facts:
The State Government of Madhya Pradesh started a Scheme known as “Jan Bhagidari Scheme”. The State Government decided to start some courses on a self-financing basis. For the said courses, the appointments were to be made on contractual/tenure basis and the honorarium of the teachers and other staff was to be decided by the said Committee. The writ petitioners, having requisite qualifications, applied to the advertised positions in pursuance to the said advertisement. Upon their selection by the duly constituted Committee, they were appointed. After the end of the Academic year, the writ petitioners were discontinued from service. Fresh advertisements were issued for the next Academic Year. Being aggrieved thereby, the writ petitioners approached the High Court. The said writ petition was allowed by the learned single judge of the High Court vide judgment and order dated 29th September, 2016, thereby directing that the writ petitioners therein would continue to work on their respective posts till regular selections were made. Being aggrieved thereby, the State Government as well as the Presidents of the Jan Bhagidari Samitis preferred appeals before the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment and order dated 8th February, 2017, allowed the writ appeals and set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned single judge of the High Court.
Appellant’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Division Bench of the High Court has erred in interfering with the judgment and order passed by the learned single judge. It was submitted that, as a matter of fact, the appellants were duly qualified and were selected in accordance with due selection process and were required to undergo the selection process in every Academic Year. It was submitted that though there was sufficient workload for regular posts, the appellants were deprived of regular employment. In any case, the appellants had not sought for regularization. The relief claimed was only for continuation of their services till duly selected candidates were appointed.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellants were appointed in accordance with the said Scheme. It was submitted that under the said Scheme, the Government Colleges were required to run various courses on a self-financing basis. It was submitted that the appointments of appellants were neither ad hoc nor temporary. Their services were as guest lecturers and were on contractual basis for 11 months. It was submitted that the said Scheme itself provided for appointment of lecturers on a guest faculty basis and as such, since the appellants had chosen not to challenge the said Scheme, the Division Bench had rightly allowed the writ appeals and dismissed the writ petitions.
SC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides SC stated that it is a settled principle of law that an ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee and he can be replaced only by another candidate who is regularly appointed by following a regular procedure prescribed.
SC found that the direction issued by the learned single judge of the High Court that the writ petitioners would be entitled to get the salary in accordance with the UGC circular is not sustainable. The advertisements themselves clearly provided that the selected candidates would be paid the honorarium to be determined by the said Committee.
SC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the SC held that “we do not find that an error was committed by the learned single judge of the High Court by directing the writ petitioners to continue to work on their respective posts till regular selections are made. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to partly allow the present appeals.”
Case Title: Manish Gupta & Anr. v. Jan Bhagidari Samiti & Ors.
Bench: J. and L. Nageswara Rao and J. B.R. Gavai
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NOS.30843088 OF 2022
Decided on: 21st April 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
