Chattisgarh High Court
Sarita Dewangan vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 August, 2022
Page 1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 5335 of 2022
Sarita Dewangan D/o Ram Lal Dewangan Aged About 30 Years Guest
Faculty (Botany), At Late Shri Devi Prasad Ji Chaube Government
College, Gandai, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh R/o Ward No. 12,
Tikripara, Rajnandgaon 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 Late Shri Devi Prasad Ji Choubey Government College,
Gandai, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
__________________________________________________________
For Petitioner : Mr. Aman Upadhyaya, Advocate.
For State. : Mr. Anshuman Shrivastava, P. L.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
Order On Board
(10.08.2022)
1. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that since
the petitioner is working as a Guest Lecturer under the respondent
No.3 for the academic session 2021-22, the respondents should not
be permitted to replace the petitioner by another set of contractual
Guest Lecturer.
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 were satisfactory as there is no
Page 2
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
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:-
(i) "8. True it is, that the Petitioners' status is that of a Guest
Page 3
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 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
Page 4
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 off.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
Amita
