Chattisgarh High Court

Tikeshwar Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 August, 2021

                                      1

                                                                       NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                     Writ Petition (S) No. 4138 of 2021

   1. Tikeshwar Kumar Sahu, Working As Guest Faculty (Department Of
      Mechanical Engineering) S/o Shri Thanulal Sahu, Aged About 30
      Years, R/o Village - Kosrangi, Post - Pacheda, District - Mahasamund
      Chhattisgarh 493445

   2. Roshan Kumar Pahan, Working As Guest Faculty (Department Of
      Mechanical Engineering), S/o Shri Surendra Pahan, Age - About 31
      Years, R/o B-9 / 236, Godariapara Chirmiri, Post - Kurasia, District -
      Koriya, Chhattisgarh 497553

   3. Ankit Kumar Verma, Working As Guest Faculty (Department Of
      Mechanical Engineering) S/o Shri Ashwini Kumar Verma, Age - About
      31 Years, R/o Village - Udella, Post - Hathbandh, District - Balodabazar
      - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 493113                       ---- Petitioners

                                    Versus

   1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Government Of
      Chhattisgarh, Department Of Higher Education, Mahanadi Bhawan,
      Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh 492002

   2. Director, Department Of Higher Education, Block C-3, 3rd And 4th
      Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh
      492002

   3. Principal, Government Engineering College, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh,
      495001                                               ---- Respondents

For Petitioners : Mr. Tanuj Patwardhan, Advocate For State : Ms. Sunita Jain, Govt. Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 10.08.2021

1. At the outset, counsel for petitioners makes an oral prayer for a small

correction in the cause title to the extent that the actual name of

petitioner no.1 is "Tikeshwar Kumar Sahu" which inadvertently in the

course of drafting has been reflected as Tikeshwar Sahu. Counsel for

petitioners prays for necessary correction during the course of the day.

2. The oral prayer is not opposed by the state counsel.

3. Accordingly, let necessary correction be carried out during the course of

the day itself.

4. The grievance of petitioners in the present writ petition is that since the

petitioners were working as Guest Lecturer under respondent No.3 for

the academic year 2020-21, the respondents should not be permitted to

replace the petitioners by another set of contractual Guest Lecturers.

5. Contention of learned counsel for petitioners is that the petitioners have

undergone a due process of selection for being appointed as Guest

Lecturer and that the services of petitioners also were satisfactory as

there is no complaint whatsoever so far as the competency of

petitioners is concerned. It is the further contention of petitioners 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 respondent No.3 for the respective

subjects in which petitioners were taking classes.

6. Learned counsel for petitioners 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.

7. Learned State counsel opposing the petition submits that it is a case

where no cause of action has till date arisen, inasmuch as the

petitioners have filed the writ petition only on apprehension and since

there is no cause of action, the matter is premature and deserves to be

rejected.

8. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of

record, what is admitted is that the petitioners were 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.

9. Further from the records, it also does not appear that the performance

of petitioners, 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."

10. This Court, under the given circumstances, is inclined to accept

the same analogy in the present case also and accordingly it is ordered

that unless there is any complaint received against the performance of

petitioners, the respondents are restrained from going in for any fresh

recruitment of Guest Lecturers for the said subjects, under the

respondent No.3-College, against which the petitioners were engaged.

11. It is however made clear that the protection to petitioners would

be only to the extent of not being replaced by another set of Guest

Lecturers. This would not preclude the State Government from going in

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. In addition, the State Govt. would also be at liberty for