Chattisgarh High Court

Rajesh Kumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 November, 2021

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR


                    WPS No. 6065 of 2021
      Rajesh Kumar, S/o Gaind Lal, Aged About 28 Years, Occupation
      Guest Faculty (Mathematics) At Government Narayanrao
      Meghawale Girls College, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.)
                                                             ---- Petitioner
                                  Versus
   1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Its Secretary Higher Education
      Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi, Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur
      (C.G.)
   2. Additional Director Directorate Of Higher Education Department,
      Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)
   3. Principal, Government Narayanrao Meghawale Girls College,
      Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.)
                                                  ---- Respondents

For petitioner - Shri Ghanshyam Kashyap, Advocate. For State - Shri Gagan Tiwari, Dy.G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order

01/11/2021

1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the advertisement dated

20/10/2021 issued by the respondent No.3 for engagement of Guest

Lecturers.

2. The averments of the petitioner is that the petitioner was engaged as

Guest Lecturer (Mathematics) from 17/03/2021 to 31/07/2021 and again

an advertisement has been made on 20/10/2021 inviting application for

guest lecturer. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the

petitioner's services have not been discontinued on account of any

unsatisfactory work or on account of any misconduct.

3. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that since

the petitioner was working as Guest Lecturer under the respondent No.3

for the academic year 2020-2021 and academic sessions has come to an

end, the respondents should not be permitted to replace the petitioner by another set of contractual Guest Lecturer.

4. 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 was 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

therespondent No.3 for the respective subject, in which the petitioner was

taking classes.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of

record, what is admitted, is that the order of appointment specifically had a

clause mentioning that the appointments so made are till an alternative

arrangement is made by way of recruitment through regular/

contractual/transfer.

8. 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."

9. 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 respective subject

under the respondent No.3-college, against which the petitioner was

engaged.

10. 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 a regular appointment or by way of engaging

contractual teachers under the rules for contractual employment.