Chattisgarh High Court
Champa Kirtaniya vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 April, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Petition (S) No. 2907 of 2022
1. Champa Kirtaniya D/o Shri Krishna Kirtaniya, Aged About 30 Years
Occupation Guest Faculty (Chemistry) At Government Naveen College,
Tongpal, District Sukma (C.G.)
2. Diksha Bhadouriya D/o Shri Chandraveer Bhadouriya, Aged About 25 Years
Occupation Guest Faculty (Zoology) At Government Naveen College,
Tongpal, District Sukma (C.G.) ---- Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Higher Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mahandi, Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)
2. Additional Director, Directorate Of Higher Education Department, Atal Nagar,
Raipur (C.G.)
3. Principal, Government Naveen College, Tongpal, District Sukma (C.G.)
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Rohan Patnaik on behalf of Mr. Ashutosh
Mishra, Advocate
For State : Mr. Anshuman Shrivastava, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order On Board
27.04.2022
1. The grievance of petitioners in the present writ petition is that since the
petitioners were working as Guest Lecturer under 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. Contention of learned counsel for petitioners is that the petitioners have
undergone a due process of selection for being appointed as Guest Lecturer
and that the services of petitioners also were satisfactory as there is no
complaint whatsoever so far as the competency of petitioners is concerned.
It is the further contention of 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
respondent No.3 for the respective subjects in which petitioners were taking
classes.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners 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 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 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
petitioners, 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 present case also and accordingly it is ordered that unless
there is any complaint received against the performance of petitioners, the
respondents are restrained from going in for any fresh recruitment of Guest
Lecturers for the said subjects, under the respondent No.3-College, against
which the petitioners were engaged.
8. It is however made clear that the protection to 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
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 petitioners 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
Khatai
