Chattisgarh High Court
Bharti Patel vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 23 June, 2022
Page No.1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 4247 of 2022
1. Ashish Patel, S/o Premlal Patel, Aged About 25 Years, Working As
Guest Faculty (Botany) at Govt. College, Fastarpur, District-Mungeli
(C.G.)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The 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. College, Fastarpur, District Mungeli (C.G.)
---- Respondents
WPS No. 4258 of 2022
1. Bharti Patel, D/o Belar Singh Patel, Aged About 25 Years Working As
Guest Faculty (Zoology) At Naveen Govt. College, Chample, District :
Raigarh, 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, Naveen Govt. College, Chample, District : Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
__________________________________________________________
For Petitioner : Mr. Govind Prasad Dewangan, Advocate.
For State/Respondents : Mr. R.M. Solapurkar. Govt. Advocate & Mr.
Kunal Das, Panel Lawyer.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant
Order On Board
Page No.2
23/06/2022
1. Both the petitions have been filed praying for relief to allow the
petitioners to perform the duties as Guest Lecturers in various
educational institutions until the selection of regular lecturers/teachers.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the
petitioners, that the petitioners have given services as Guest Faculty
Lecturers in various places, since the past years. Before their
appointment as Guest Faculty Lecturer, both the petitioners had
cleared the selection process for such appointment. It is submitted that
term of the appointment of the petitioners as Guest Lecturer has
expired in April, 2022 and the petitioners have apprehension that the
respondent authorities shall initiate process for appointment of fresh
Guest Lecturers in places of the petitioners. It is submitted that in case
of Meeta Dewangan Vs. State of C.G. & Ors, in W.P.(S) No. 1764 of
2022, decided on 15.03.2022, the similar question was involved, which
has been decided in favour of the petitioner. Further the Supreme
Court has held in case of State of Haryana Vs. Piara Singh and Ors.,
reported in (1992) 4 SCC 118, that an adhoc or temporary employee
should not be replaced by another adhoc or temporary employee, he
must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee. The case of
the petitioners is same. Hence, it is prayed that appropriate direction
be issued to the respondent authorities to accommodate the
petitioners as Guest Lecturers in the educational institutions, until the
regular appointment is made.
3. Learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents
opposes the petitions and the submissions made in this respect. It is
submitted that the petitioners have filed those petitions only on the
Page No.3
basis of apprehension that they may be replaced by some other newly
appointed Guest Lecturer, therefore, no cause of action has arisen till
date. The petitions filed are premature and are fit to be rejected.
Relying on the order of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(S)
No. 6144 of 2021 between Roopa Devi Kurrey & Ors. Vs. State of
C.G. & Anr. decided on 12.11.2021, it is submitted that the learned
Single Judge has very clearly held that in the similar case, that no
cause of action has arisen for filing the petition and further the learned
Single Bench has referred the matter to be placed before larger Bench
by framing question, as to whether in absence of cause of action, the
petition as framed and instituted seeking the relief in the nature of
issuance of writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India could be held to be sustainable? It is submitted that until this
question is decided by the larger Bench, the present petitions are not
fit to be considered. Hence, both the petitions may be dismissed.
4. In reply, it is submitted by the learned counsels for the petitioners that
in similar cases, several orders have been passed by the Coordinate
Bench by this Court, subsequent to the passing of the order dated
12.11.2021 in W.P.(S) No. 6144 of 2021. Reference is made to the
order passed in W.P.(S) No. 2710 of 2022 and bunch of other cases,
on 21.04.2022, in W.P.(S) No. 3390 of 2022, passed on 10.05.2022
and in W.P.(S) No.3442 of 2022, passed on 11.05.2022. It is submitted
that similar objection was raised by the respondents side, before the
Coordinate Bench of this Court despite that these orders have been
passed and appropriate directions have been issued.
5. It is further submitted that in recent development the State
Government has issued an order dated 12.10.2021, directing the
Page No.4
Commissioner, Directorate of Higher Education, that Guest Lecturers
regarding whom there is direction of the High Court, the same should
be followed and as there is direction with respect to the Guest
Lecturers, which are being followed and complied with by the State.
Similar direction is required for present petitioners also. Hence, it is
submitted that present petitions may also be disposed off in the same
line.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents placed on record.
7. In case of Roopa Devi Kurre (Supra), the learned Single Bench has
although held that no cause of action was present in that case on the
basis of the facts present in that case, however, the question has been
framed by the Single Bench that as to whether the petitioner under
Article 226 can be entertained despite absence of cause of action or
not.
8. In case of Aadi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam & Ors. Vs.
State of Tamil Naidu, reported in AIR 2016 209, it was held by the
Supreme Court in para-10, which is as follows :
"10. It is difficult for us to accept the contentions advanced
on behalf of the respondents with regard to the
maintainability of writ petitions on two counts. Firstly, it is
difficult to appreciate as to why the petitioners should be
non-suited at the threshold merely because the G.O.
dated 23.05.2006 has not been given effect to by actual
orders of the State Government. The institution of a writ
proceeding need not await actual prejudice and adverse
effect and consequence. An apprehension of such harm, if
the same is well founded, can furnish a cause of action for
moving the Court. The argument that the present writ
petition is founded on a cause relating to appointment in a
Page No.5
public office and hence not entertainable as a public
interest litigation would be too simplistic a solution to
adopt to answer the issues that have been highlighted
which concerns the religious faith and practice of a large
number of citizens of the country and raises claims of
century old traditions and usage having the force of law.
The above is the second ground, namely, the gravity of the
issues that arise, that impel us to make an attempt to
answer the issues raised and arising in the writ petitions
for determination on the merits thereof."
9. In view of the observations of Supreme Court in case of Aadi Saiva
Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam (Supra), this Court is of the view that
such technical objection should not come on the way when there is
question of right involved to be considered upon.
10. In W.P.(S) No. 2710 of 2022, W.P.(S) No. 3442 of 2022, W.P.(S) No.
3390 of 2022, the Coordinate Bench has placed reliance on the
judgment of this Court in case of Manju Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of C.G.
W.P.(S) No. 4406 of 2016, decided on 27.02.2017. In paragraph 8 to
11 of the judgment of Manju Gupta's case, it has been 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
Page No.6
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 qaushment of the advertisement
issued by the Respondents would also not come in the
way of the Respondents for filling up of the sanctioned
Page No.7
vacant posts by regular recruitment or by way of
contractual appointment for which the Respondents shall
be free."
11. The judgment in case of State of Haryana & Ors. (Supra) and the
judgment in case of Dr. Chanchal Goyal Vs. State of Rajasthan,
reported in (2003) 3 SCC 485 have been referred in the Manju Gupta
judgment.
12. In another judgment of Supreme Court in case of Hargurpratap Singh
Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2007) 13 SCC 292, it has been
again held that one set of adhoc appointees should not be replaced by
another set of adhoc appointees and the direction is given that adhoc
appointees be continued in service until the regular appointments are
made.
13. In view of these judicial pronouncement, the case of the petitioners is
also fit to be considered on the same line. Hence, both the petitions
are disposed off. The respondents are restrained from going in for
fresh recruitment of adhoc Guest Lecturers with respect to the places
on which, the petitioners in both the cases have been giving services
so far as guest lecturers in different faculties and the appointment of
the petitioners be considered in the institutions in which the petitioners
were previously appointed so far it is practicable. It is made clear that
this order of restraint is only with respect to the fresh appointment of
adhoc Guest Lecturers. This order does not preclude the State
Government for making regular appointments on the pay scale as
prescribed on the post concerned.
14. The petitioners in both the cases have also prayed for relief of proper
remuneration regarding which it is observed that it shall be open for
the petitioners to make suitable representation, before the respondent
Page No.8
authorities and the respondent authorities shall be obliged to take a
policy decision with respect to remuneration, which is appropriate for
payment to the Guest Lecturers keeping in view the guidelines that
have been laid down by the University Grants Commission.
15. With these observations, both the petitions are disposed off.
Sd/-
(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)
Judge
Nisha
