Chattisgarh High Court
Basudev Rana vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 23 June, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Petition (S) No. 2809 of 2021
1. Basudev Rana S/o Mr. Ramesh Rana Aged About 23 Years Occupation
Guest Faculty (Zoology) , At Government Dr. B.R. Ambedkar College,
Baloda, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund,
Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Higher Education
Department, Mantralaya , Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Additional Director Directorate Of Higher Education Department, Atal
Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3. Principal Government Dr. B.R. Ambedkar College , Baloda , District
Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
----Respondents
For Petitioner : Shri Ghanshyam Kashyap, Advocate.
For State : Shri Kunal Das, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order On Board
23.06.2021
1. Grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that since the
petitioner was working as a Contractual Assistant Professor under the
respondent no.3 for the academic session 2020-21, the respondents
should not be permitted to replace the petitioner by another temporary
faculty.
2. Contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner has
undergone a due process of selection for being appointed as an
Assistant Professor and that the service of the petitioner also was
satisfactory as there is no complaint whatsoever, so far as the
competency of the petitioner is concerned. Further contention of
learned counsel for petitioner is that 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 post of Guest Lecturer
under the respondent no.3 for the subject in which the petitioner was
taking classes.
3. Learned counsel for 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. Learned State counsel opposing the petition submits that it is a case
where no cause of action has till date arisen, inasmuch 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 quashment 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 present case 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
Lecturer unless the services are unsatisfactory which could be
determined on the basis of the ACR of the petitioner.
9. With the aforesaid observations, Writ Petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
1. P. Sam Koshy
Judge
Jyotijha
