Chattisgarh High Court

Ku. Sangeeta vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 July, 2021

                                            1


                                                                              NAFR

                  HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                WPS No. 3527 of 2021
     1.      Ku. Sangeeta D/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal Aged About 29 Years
             Occupation Guest Faculty (Commerce) Government Ghanshyam
             Singh Gupt P.G. College Balod, District Balod Chhattisgarh, R/o
             Ward No. 54, Abadi Para Potiyakala, Tehsil And District Durg
             Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
     2.      Murlidhar Sahu S/o Shri Ganesh Ram Sahu Aged About 56 Years
             Occupation Guest Faculty (Commerce) Government Ghanshyam
             Singh Gupt P.G. College Balod, District Balod Chhattisgarh, R/o
             Sanjay Nagar Balod , District Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod,
             Chhattisgarh
                                                                  ---- Petitioners
                                          Versus
     1.      State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary, Higher
             Education Department , Mantralaya, Indiravati Bhawan, New
             Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
     2.      Commissioner Higher Education , Block C-3, 2nd And 3rd Floor ,
             Indiravati Bhawan, New Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh.,
             District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
     3.      Principal Government Ghanshyam Singh Gupt P.G. College Balod ,
             District Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Chandradeep Prasad, Advocate For State : Mr. Ishan Verma, Panel Lawyer

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 13/07/2021

1. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that

since the petitioner was working as a Guest Lecturer under the

respondent No.3 for the academic year 2020-21, 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 was satisfactory as there

is no complaint whatsoever, so far as the competency of the

petitioner is concerned. It is further the 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

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 are till an alternative

arrangement is made by way of regular recruitment/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 in for any fresh recruitment of a Guest Lecturer for the said

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

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 teachers under the rules for