Chattisgarh High Court
Hukesh Kumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 June, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WRIT PETITION (SERVICE) NO. 2913 OF 2021
Hukesh Kumar, S/o Panch Ram Markandey, aged about 27 years, working
as Guest Faculty (Commerce) at Yashwant Rao Meghawale Govt. College,
Magarlod, District Dhamtari (CG)
... Petitioner
versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Higher
Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur
(CG)
2. Additional Director, Directorate of Higher Education Department, Atal
Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur (CG)
3. Principal, Yashwant Rao Meghawale Govt. College, Magarlod, District
Dhamtari (CG)
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Govind Dewangan, Advocate.
For Respondents : Ms. Sunita Jain, Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order on Board
24/06/2021
1. Grievance of Petitioner is that since he was working as a Guest
Lecturer under Respondent No.3 for the academic session 2020-21, the
Respondents should not be permitted to replace him by another set of
contractual Guest Lecturers.
2. Contention of learned Counsel for Petitioner is that, Petitioner has
undergone a due process of selection for being appointed as a Guest
Lecturer and that his services also were satisfactory as there is no complaint
whatsoever so far as her competency is concerned. Further contention is
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 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 Writ Petition submits that it is a
case where no cause of action has till date arisen, inasmuch as the
Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition only on apprehension and since
there is no cause of action, the matter is premature and deserves to be
dismissed.
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 appointments 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 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 dissatisfactory. 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
Petitioner, the Respondents are restrained from going in for any fresh
recruitment of a Guest Lecturer under Respondent No.3 College for the
subject against which the Petitioner was engaged.
8. It is however made clear that the said protection to 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 in for filling up of
the post by way of a 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 Petitioner to make a suitable
representation in this regard before Respondent No.1 who in turn would
take a policy decision so far as the remuneration part payable to the Guest
Lecturers is concerned, keeping in view of the guidelines that have been laid
down by the UGC.
10. With the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy)
Judge
sharad
