Chattisgarh High Court

Swarnima Shrivastava vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 November, 2021

                                         1

                                                                               NAFR

                 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                               WPS No. 6048 of 2021

   1. Swarnima Shrivastava D/o Late Mr. B.K. Shrivastava, Aged About 37 Years
      Occupation Guest Faculty (B C A Computer Application) Government
      Nagarjuna P.G. Science College Raipur District - Raipur C.G., R/o Mig 772 Dd
      Nagar, Sector-2, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh

   2. Miss Neeta Dhangar D/o Shri Kapur Chand Dhangar, Aged About 31 Years
      Occupation Guest Faculty (B C A / D C A) Government Nagarjuna P.G. Science
      College Raipur District - Raipur C.G., R/o Dhangar Chowk Tikrapara, District -
      Raipur Chhattisgarh

                                                                      ---- Petitioners

                                      Versus

   1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Principal Secretary, Higher Education
      Department, Mantralaya, Indiravati Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur
      Chhattisgarh

   2. Commissioner, Higher Education, Block C-3, 2nd And 3rd Floor, Indiravati
      Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

   3. Principal, Government Nagarjuna P.G. Science College Raipur District - Raipur
      Chhattisgarh

                                                                    ---- Respondents

For Petitioners : Shri Chandradeep Prasad, Advocate

For Respondents/State : Shri Gagan Tiwari, Dy. GA

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

Order

01/11/2021

1. Heard.

2. The grievance of the petitioners in the present writ petition is that since the

petitioners were working as a Guest Lecturer under the respondent No.3 for the

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

the petitioners by another set of contractual Guest Lecturers.

3. The contention of the petitioners is that the petitioners have undergone a due

process of selection for being appointed as a Guest Lecturer and that the

services of the petitioners also was satisfactory as there is no complaint

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

further the contention of the petitioners 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 the respondent No.3

for the subject in which the petitioners were taking classes.

4. Counsel for the 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.

5. 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.

6. 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 appointment

so made are till an alternative arrangement is made by way of regular

recruitment/contractual/transfer.

7. 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."

8. This Court, under the given circumstances, is inclined to accept the same

analogy in the case of the petitioners also and accordingly it is ordered that

unless there is any complaint received against the performance of the

petitioners, 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 petitioners were engaged.

9. It is however made clear that the protection to the petitioners 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.

10. So far as the claim of remuneration as per the guidelines of the UGC is

concerned, it would be open for the petitioners to make a suitable

representation before the respondent No.1 in this regard, who in turn would

take a policy decision, so far as the remuneration part payable to the Guest

Lecturers, keeping in view of the guidelines, that have been laid down by the

UGC.