Chattisgarh High Court
Vijetri Vikram Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 August, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Petition (S) No. 4075 of 2021
Vijetri Vikram Singh S/o Shri Akhand Narain Singh, Aged About 41
Years, Guest Faculty (Hindi) At Government Swami Atmanand
Snatkottar College, Narayanpur, District - Narayanpur (C.G.), R/o H-
03, Government Swami Atmanand Post Graduation College,
Narayanpur Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Higher Education
Department, Mantralaya, Mahandi, Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur
Chhattisgarh
2. Additional Director, Directorate Of Higher Education Department, Atal
Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh
3. Principal, Government Swami Atmanad Santkottar College,
Narayanpur, District - Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Khushboo Dua, Advocate
For State : Ms. Abhyunati Singh, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order On Board
06.08.2021
1. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that since
the petitioner was working as Guest Lecturer under the respondent
No.3 for the academic year 2020-21 and the academic session is
over, the respondents should not be permitted to replace the
petitioner by another set of contractual Guest Lecturers.
2. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner has undergone a
due process of selection for being appointed as a Guest Lecturer and
that the services of the petitioner also were satisfactory as there is no
complaint whatsoever, so far as the competency of the petitioner is
concerned. It is further contention of the petitioner that now that the
academic session is over, the respondents should not be permitted to
go in for a fresh recruitment process for filling up of the posts of Guest
Lecturers under the respondent No.3 for the respective subject, in
which the petitioner was taking classes.
3. Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court
passed in the case of "Manju Gupta & others v. State of
Chhattisgarh & others" WPS No. 4406/2016, decided on
27.02.2017, whereby the similarly placed Guest Lecturers under the
Director (Industrial Training Institute) have been granted protection
from being replaced by another set of Guest Lecturers.
4. The State counsel opposing the petition submits that it is a case
where no cause of action has till date arisen, in as much as the
petitioner has filed the writ petition only on apprehension and since
there is no cause of action, the matter is premature and deserves to
be rejected.
5. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal
of record, what is admitted is that the petitioner was appointed vide
Annexure P/1. The order of appointment specifically had a clause
mentioning that the appointment so made is till an alternative
arrangement is made by way of recruitment through regular/
contractual/ transfer.
6. Further from the records, it also does not appear that the performance
of the petitioner, at any point of time, was found to be unsatisfactory.
In the case of "Manju Gupta" (supra), this Court in paragraphs No. 8
to 11 has held as under:-
"8. True it is, that the Petitioners' status is that of a
Guest Lecturer but that does not mean that they
do not have any right. There is always a legitimate
expectation of the Petitioners that since the filling
up of the posts has not been initiated by way of a
regular appointment or by contractual
appointments, the Petitioners would be permitted
to continue.
9. The undisputed fact is that the Petitioners were
given appointment only on undertaking given by
them pursuant to an advertisement by the
Respondents. In the undertaking which was made
to be furnished by the Petitioners, they were made
to undertake that their appointment would be till
the posts are filled up by regular/contractual
appointment. This by itself clearly gives an
indication that unless the Respondents fill up the
sanctioned vacant posts by either regular
recruitment or by way of contractual appointment,
the Petitioners would continue as Guest Lecturers.
On the practical aspect also the fact that the
Petitioners are discharging the duties of Guest
Lecturers for last more than 1-2 years, itself is a
good ground for permitting the Petitioners to
continue on the said posts as Guest Lecturers,
simply for the reason of their experience on the
said post, as fresh recruitment would mean that
persons with no or less experience would be
participating in the recruitment process, which also
would not be in the interest of the students who
are undertaking training in the respective
institutions.
10. Taking into consideration the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Piara Singh (supra)
and which has been further reiterated in the case
of Dr. Chanchal Goyal (supra), this Court has no
hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that the
advertisement (Annexure P-1) so issued by the
Respondents is definitely not in the interest of the
students undertaking training at Industrial Training
Institute, Ambikapur, and the same would amount
to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India
and the same therefore deserves to be and is
accordingly quashed. The advertisement would be
deemed to be quashed only to the extent of the
recruitment against the posts at which the
Petitioners are discharging. That is to say, the
Respondents would be entitled to fill up the posts
which are lying vacant by way of Guest Lecturers
where there are no Guest Lecturers available.
11. It is directed that the Respondents would not
be entitled for filling up the posts of Guest Lecturer
by replacing the Petitioners unless the
Respondents come up with a stand that the
services of the Petitioners were dis-satisfactory.
The qaushment of the advertisement issued by the
Respondents would also not come in the way of
the Respondents for filling up of the sanctioned
vacant posts by regular recruitment or by way of
contractual appointment for which the
Respondents shall be free."
7. This Court, under the given circumstances, is inclined to accept the
same analogy in the case of the petitioner also and accordingly it is
ordered that unless there is any complaint received against the
performance of the petitioner, the respondents are restrained from
going for any fresh recruitment of a Guest Lecturer for the respective
subject under the respondent No.3-College, against which the
petitioner was engaged.
8. It is however made clear that the protection to the petitioner would be
only to the extent of not being replaced by another set of Guest
Lecturer. This would not preclude the State Government from going
for filling up of the post by way of a regular appointment or by way of
engaging contractual Lecturers under the rules for contractual
employment.
9. So far as the claim of remuneration as per the guidelines of the UGC
is concerned, it would be open for the petitioner to make a suitable
representation before the respondent No.1 in this regard, who in turn
would take a policy decision as regards the remuneration part payable
to the Guest Lecturers, keeping in view of the guidelines, that have
been laid down by the UGC.
10. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands
disposed off.
Sd/-
P. Sam Koshy
Judge
Khatai
