Chattisgarh High Court

Pinky Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 8 July, 2022

Page No.1

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

WPS No. 4697 of 2022

1. Bharat Kumar Kunjam S/o Haresingh Kunjam Aged About 28 Years
Working As Guest Faculty (D.C.A.) At Govt. Swami Atmanand P.G.
College, Narayanpur (Chhattisgarh)

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Higher
Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur
District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

2. Additional Director, Directorate Of Higher Education Department, Atal
Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

3. Principal Govt. Swami Atmanand P.G. College, Narayanpur
(Chhattisgarh)

---- Respondents

WPS No. 4708 of 2022

1. Sangita Baghel D/o Gangaram Baghel Aged About 28 Years Working
As Guest Faculty (Hindi) At Govt. Kangla Manjhi College Daundi,
District : Balod, Chhattisgarh

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Higher
Education Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Additional Director Directorate Of Higher Education Department Atal
Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Principal Govt. Kangla Manjhi College Daundi, District : Balod,
Chhattisgarh

---- Respondents

WPS No. 4573 of 2022

1. Bhawesh Kumar Dewangan S/o Babu Lal Dewangan Aged About 25
Years Working As Gurest Faculty (Commerce) At Government Dr.
Indrajeet Singh College, Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa
Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
Page No.2

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Higher
Education , Mantralaya , Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Additional Director Directorate Of Higher Education Department , Atal
Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3. Principal Government Dr. Indrajeet Singh College, Akaltara, District
Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents

WPS No. 4716 of 2022

1. Pinky Sahu D/o Bishram Lal Sahu, Aged About 29 Years Working As
Guest Faculty (Chemistry) At Govt. Naveen College, Bagbahar, District
: Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Higher
Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Additional Director, Directorate Of Higher Education Depatment, Atal
Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Principal, Govt. Naveen College, Bagbahar, District : Jashpur,
Chhattisgarh

---- Respondents

__________________________________________________________

For Petitioners : Mr. Govind Prasad Dewangan, Advocate.
For Respondents/State : Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Dy. Adv. General &Mr.
Akash Pandey, Panel Lawyer.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order On Board (08.07.2022) Page No.3

1. The grievance of the petitioners in the present writ petitions are that

since the petitioners were working as a Guest Lecturers under the

respondent No.3 for the academic session 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 are that the petitioners have

undergone a due process of selection for being appointed as a Guest

Lecturer and that the services of the petitioners also were satisfactory

as there is no complaint whatsoever, so far as the competency of the

petitioners are 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 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. 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 Page No.4

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 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:-

(i) "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 Page No.5

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