Nitesh Chandra Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3004 Chatt

                                                       1




          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                            WPS No. 6055 of 2021

     • Nitesh Chandra Sahu S/o Firat Ram Sahu Aged About 25 Years Working As A
       Guest Faculty ( English) At Govenment College Barpali, District - Korba (C.G.)
                                                                                            ---- Petitioner
                                                   Versus
    1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department, Of Higher
       Education Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur
       (C.G.)
    2. Additional Director Directorate Of Higher Education Department, Atal Nagar
       New Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)
    3. Principle, Government College Barpali, District - Korba (C.G.)
                                                                                    ---- Respondents

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Petitioner                               :        Shri Sanjay Yadav, Advocate


For Respondent/ State                       :         Shri Anmol Sharma, P.L.




                         Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

                                           Order on Board
01.11.2021

         Heard

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

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

academic year 2020-21, the respondents should not be permitted to replace

the petitioner by another set of contractual Guest Lecturer.

2. Contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner has

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

Lecturer and that the service of petitioner also was satisfactory as there is no

complaint whatsoever, so far as the competency of petitioner is concerned. It

is further 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 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 is till an alternative arrangement is made by way of

recruitment through regular/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 under taking 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 TrainingInstitute, Ambikapur, and the same would amountto 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 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 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 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 Lecturers under the rules for

contractual employment.

9. So far as the claim of remuneration as per the guidelines of UGC is concerned, it

would be open for petitioner to make a suitable representation before respondent

No.1 in this regard, who in turn would take a policy decision as regards the

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/-

                                                       (Goutam Bhaduri)
Jyoti                                                          Judge