Pooja Gupta vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3122 Chatt

                                     1


                                                                      N/AFR
            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
             WRIT PETITION (SERVICE) NO. 3115 OF 2022
      Pooja Gupta, D/o Kailash Gupta, aged about 29 years, working as
Guest Faculty (Hindi) at Govt. Gajanand Agrawal P.G. College, Bhatapara,
District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)
                                                            ... Petitioner
                                 versus
1.     State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, Department of Higher
Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur,
District Raipur (C.G.)
2.     Additional Director, Directorate of Higher Education Department,
Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
3.     Principal, Govt. Gajanand Agrawal P.G. College, Bhatapara, District
Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)
                                                        ... Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Govind Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Ravi Bhagat, Dy. Govt. Advocate and Mr. Kunal Das, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board [29/04/2022]

1. Grievance of the Petitioner in the present Writ Petition is that since

she was working as a Guest Lecturer under the Respondent No.3 for the

academic session 2021-22, the Respondents should not be permitted to

replace her 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 her services also were satisfactory as there is no

complaint whatsoever so far as her competency is concerned. Further

contention of learned Counsel for Petitioner is 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. 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 27.2.2017,

whereby 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 Panel Lawyer opposing the Writ Petition submits that it is a

case where no cause of action has till date arisen, inasmuch as the

Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition only on apprehension and

since there is no cause of action, the matter is premature and deserves to

be dismissed.

5. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal

of record, what is admitted is that the appointment so made is 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 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 dissatisfactory. The quashment 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

Petitioner, the Respondents are restrained from going in for any fresh

recruitment of Guest Lecturer under the Respondent No.3 for the subject

against which the Petitioner was engaged.

8. It is however made clear that the said 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 in this regard before Respondent No.1 who in turn would

take a policy decision so far as the remuneration part payable to the

Guest Lecturers is concerned, keeping in view of the guidelines that have

been laid down by the UGC.

10. With aforesaid observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

Sd/-

                                                                      (P. Sam Koshy)
/sharad/                                                                   Judge