Chattisgarh High Court

Ruby Dubey vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 June, 2021

                                      1




                                                                        NAFR

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

              WRIT PETITION (SERVICE) NO. 2868 OF 2021

   1. Ruby Dubey, W/o Devesh Dubey, age 44 years, working as Guest
       Faculty (Geography) at Govt. Navin College, Aamdi, District
       Dhamtari (CG)
   2. Tripti Sahu, D/o Rameshwar Singh Sahu, age 23 years, working as
       Guest Faculty (Physics) at Govt. Navin College, Aamdi, Distt.
       Dhamtari (CG)
   3. Bhola Shankar Sen, S/o Bodhanand Sen, age 22 years, working as
       Guest Faculty (Botany) at Govt. Navin College, Aamdi, District
       Dhamtari (CG)
                                                                         ...

Petitioners 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, Govt. Navin College, Aamdi, District Dhamtari (CG) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Govind Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondents : Ms. Binu Sharma, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 24/06/2021

1. Grievance of Petitioners is that since they were working as a Guest

Lecturer under Respondent No.3 for the academic session 2020-21, the

Respondents should not be permitted to replace them by another set of

contractual Guest Lecturers.

2. Contention of learned Counsel for Petitioners is that, Petitioners have

undergone a due process of selection for being appointed as a Guest

Lecturer and that their services also were satisfactory as there is no

complaint whatsoever so far as their 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 Petitioners were taking classes.

3. Learned Counsel for Petitioners 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

Petitioners have 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 Petitioners were 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

Petitioners, 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 Petitioners were engaged.

8. It is however made clear that the said protection to Petitioners 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