Chattisgarh High Court
Keshaw Prasad Dewangan vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 August, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 3895 of 2021
1. Keshaw Prasad Dewangan S/o Bhoj Ram Dewangan Aged About 30 Years
Working As Guest Faculty (Chemistry) At Govt. Gajanand Agrawal P.G.
College, Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Higher
Education Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
2. Additional Director Directorate Of Higher Education Department Atal Nagar,
Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3. Principal Govt. Gajanand Agrawal P.G. College Bhatapara District Baloda
Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Govind Prasad Dewangan, Advocate
For State : Mr. Suyash Dhar, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order On Board
11.08.2021
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
J-
