Chattisgarh High Court

Pankaj Kumar Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 26 April, 2022

                                  1


                                                                     NAFR

         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                       WPS No. 2974 of 2022
 Madhuri Maheshwari D/o Mukesh Kumar Aged About 25 Years R/o
  House No. 29/47, Qtr. No. 48, Ward No. 09, High School Sector
  Gayatri Mandir Ward, Dalli Rajhara, District Balod Chhattisgarh,
  Occupation Guest Faculty (English) At Government Ghanshyam
  Singh Gupt Postgraduate College Balod, District Balod Chhattisgarh.
                                                           ---- Petitioner
                               Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Higher Education,
   Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur
   Chhattisgarh.
2. Additional Director Directorate Of Higher Education Department, Atal
   Nagar Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3. Principal  (Agrani),  Government        Ghanshyam      Singh      Gupt
   Postgraduate College Balod, District Balod Chhattisgarh.
                                                        ---- Respondent

WPS No. 2977 of 2022

1. Pankaj Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Ramanand Sahu, Aged About 34 Years R/o Village - Sikola, Po - Patan, Thana - Patan, District - Durg, C.G., Occupation Guest Faculty (Economics), At Badri Prasad Lodhi Government Postgraduate College, Arang, District - Raipur (C.G.)

2. Upendra Kumar Sahu, S/o Gopnath Sahu, Aged About 34 Years Village - Dhabakhar, Po- Bhagat Devri, Thana - Basna, Tehsil - Pithora, District - Mahasamund C.G. Occupation Guest Faculty (Economics), At Badri Prasad Lodhi Government Postgraduate College, Arang, District - Raipur (C.G.)

3. Purushottam Kumar Sahu, S/o Shri Shivshankar Sahu, Aged About 34 Years R/o Village - Temri, Po- Devpuri, Thana- Mana Camp, Tehsil And District - Raipur (Cg) Occupation Guest Faculty (Political Science), At Badri Prasad Lodhi Government Postgraduate College, Arang, District - Raipur (C.G.)

4. Surbhi Gupta, D/o Sudesh Gupta, Aged About 27 Years R/o House No. 1890, Ward No. 10 Gupta Para Arang, Thana And Tehsil - Arang, District Raipur (C.G.) Occupation Guest Faculty (Commerce), At Badri Prasad Lodhi Government Postgraduate College, Arang, District - Raipur (C.G.)

5. Pankaj Kumar Sarde, S/o Vasant Rao Sarde, Aged About 42 Years R/o Behind Dattatray Mandir, Bramhpuri District - Raipur (C.G.) Occupation Guest Faculty (Maths), At Badri Prasad Lodhi Goverment Postgraduate College, Arang, District - Raipur (C.G.)

6. Deepak Kumar, S/o Chandu Lal Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Gatapara, Post - Abhanpur, District - Raipur (C.G.) Occupation Guest

Faculty (Hindi), At Badri Prasad Lodhi Government Postgraduate College, Arang, District - Raipur (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, Badri Prasad Lodhi Government Postgraduate College, Arang, District - Raipur (C.G.)

---- Respondent

For Petitioners : Ms. Supriya Upasane, Advocate For State : Ms. Sunita Jain, G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 26/04/2022

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 2021-22, 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 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 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