Kiran Churendra vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 2185 Chatt

                                                                       NAFR
              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                          WPS No. 2366 of 2022
     • Kiran Churendra D/o Devilal Churendra Aged About 26 Years R/o
       Village And Post -Sambalpur, District - Kanker (C.G.)
                                                                  ---- Petitioner
                                     Versus
     1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Higher Education
        Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur
        (C.G.)
     2. Additional Director, Directorate Of Higher Education Department, Atal
        Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)
     3. Principal, Government Naveen College, Mahud (B), District - Balod
        (C.G.)                                       ---- Respondents

For Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhijeet Mishra, Advocate

For State/Respondent : Mr. Ravi Bhagat, Dy. GA

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 06/04/2022

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 2021-22, the respondents should not be permitted to replace

the petitioner by another set of contractual Guest Lecturers.

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 respondentNo.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 flling 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 flled up by

regular/contractual appointment. This by itself clearly

gives an indication that unless the Respondents fll 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

defnitely 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 fll 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 flling 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 flling 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/-

(P. Sam Koshy)

Judge

Pawan