Chattisgarh High Court

Navrang Gupta vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 November, 2021

                                             1




                                                                                NAFR

                   HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                WPS No. 6086 of 2021
     1.      Navrang Gupta S/o Shri Indrajeet Gupta, Aged About 26 Years
             Occupation Guest Faculty (Chemistry) Government College
             Baramkela District - Raigarh C.G., R/o Village - Jamgaon, Tehsil -
             Raigarh, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh.
     2.      Jaishankar Bhumijan D/o Late Shri Ramlal Bhumijan Aged About 28
             Years Occupation Guest Faculty (Commerce) Government College
             Baramkela District - Raigarh C.G., R/o Village - Dansara, Post -
             Dansara, Tehsil - Sarangarh District - Raigarh 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       College   Baramkela   District   -   Raigarh
             Chhattisgarh.
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Petitioners : Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, Advocate For State : Mr. Lalit Jangde, Panel Lawyer

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 01/11/2021

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

since the petitioners were working as Guest Lecturers under the

respondent No.3 for the academic year 2020-21, the respondents

should not be permitted to replace the petitioners by another set of

contractual Guest Lecturers.

2. The contention of the petitioners is that the petitioners have

undergone a due process of selection for being appointed as Guest

Lecturers and that the services of the petitioners also were

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.

3. 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.

4. 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

petitioners have 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 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.

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 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.

8. 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