Shailendra Kumar Banjare vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 680 Chatt

                                         1

                                                                          NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                       Writ Petition (S) No. 3037 of 2021

   1. Shailendra Kumar Banjare S/o Shri Johan Lal, Aged About 29 Years Guest
      Faculty (Hindi) At Government College, Gobra- Nawapara, District Raipur
      (Chhattisgarh) R/o Jaistambh Para, Village Gondela, Tahsil Gunderdehi
      Balod, District Balod Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh

                                                                   ---- Petitioner

                                      Versus

   1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Higher Education Department,
      Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh

   2. Additional Director, Directorate Of Higher Education Department, Atal Nagar,
      Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

   3. Principal,  Government College, Gobra-Nawapara, District Raipur
      Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ----Respondents

For Petitioner : Shri Anupam Sharma, Advocate.

For State                 :      Shri Amit Buxy, P.L.


                     Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
                                Order On Board
29.06.2021

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. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

Sd/-

1. P. Sam Koshy Judge

Jyotijha