Chattisgarh High Court
Gochand Patel vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 4 October, 2021
-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 5394 of 2021
Gochand Patel S/o Kamal Ram Aged About 30 Years Working As
Government P.G. College Kawardha District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Higher
Education Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh
2. Additional Director Directorate Of Higher Education Department, Atal
Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
3. Principal Government P.G. College Kawardha, District Kabirdham
Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. C. P. Lahrey, Advocate.
For State : Mr. Kunal Das, PL
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order on Board
04/10/2021
1. 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 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 a Guest Lecturer 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 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
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 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 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 employment.
9. 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.
10. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed
of.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy)
Judge
Rohit
