Chattisgarh High Court
Yogesh Patel vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 April, 2022
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 2331 of 2022
• Yogesh Patel, S/o Navratan Lal Patel, Aged about 27 years, working as
Guest Faculty (Zoology) at Govt. Mukutdhar Pande College, Katghora,
District Korba, Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, through- Secretary, Department of Higher
Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur,
District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Additional Diretor, Directorate of Higher Education Department, Atal
Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. Principal, Govt. Mukutdhar Pande College, Katghora, District Korba,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Govind Prasad Dewangan, Advocate
For State/Respondents : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order on Board
05/04/2022
1. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that since
the petitioner was working as a Guest Lecturer under the respondent
No.3 for the academic year 2021-22, the respondents should not be
permitted to replace the petitioner by another set of contractual Guest
Lecturers.
2. 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 the respondent No.3 for the subject in
which the petitioner was taking classes.
3. Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court
passed in the case of "Manju Gupta & others Vs. 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
petitioner was engaged.
8. 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.
9. So far as the claim of remuneration as per the guidelines of the UGC
is concerned, it would be open for the petitioner 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
Vasant
