Chattisgarh High Court
Dr. Alka Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 June, 2021
-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 2860 of 2021
Dr. Alka Singh W/o Awdhesh Pratap Singh, Aged About 31 Years
Working As Government Mahendra Karma Girls College
Dantewada, District South Bastar Dantewada, 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, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Principal, Government Mahendra Karma Girls College Dantewada,
District Sourth Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh
----Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. C. P. Lahrey, Advocate.
For State : Mr. Amit Buxy, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order on Board
24/06/2021
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 session 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 were 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 regular appointment or
by way of engaging contractual teachers 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 regarding remuneration
part payable to the Guest Lecturers, keeping in view 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
