Chattisgarh High Court

Dilip Dwivedi vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 June, 2022

                                  1


                                                                   NAFR
    HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                       WPS No. 4238 of 2022

1. Rajaram Patel S/o Kaushal Patel, Aged About 28 Years, Working as
   Guest Faculty (Botany) at Govt, Minimata Girls College, Baloda Bazar,
   District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh

2. Bharti Yadaw W/o Maniram Yadu, Aged About 28 Years, Working as
   Guest Faculty (Zoology) at Govt, Minimata Girls College, Baloda
   Bazar, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh

                                                          ---- Petitioners

                               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, Atal Nagar, Naya
   Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Principal, Govt, Minimata Girls College, Baloda Bazar, District Baloda
   Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh

                                                       ---- Respondents

WPS No. 3955 of 2022

• Dilip Dwivedi S/o Late Gurudayal Dwivedi, Aged About 45 Years, Working as Guest Faculty (Sociology) at Government Ramanuj Pratap Singhdeo Post Graduate College Baikunthpu, District Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Department of Higher Education Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Commissioner, Higher Education Department, Block C-3, 2 nd and 3rd Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. The Principal, Government Ramanuj Pratap Singhdeo Post Graduate College Baikunthpur, District Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

---- Respondents

WPS No. 3961 of 2022

• Pushplata Koram D/o Mahavir Singh Koram, Aged About 24 Years, Working as Guest Lecturer (Geography) at Acharya Pant Shree Grindh Muni naam Sahab Government P.G. College Kawardha, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh

---- Petitioner

Versus

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

2. Commissioner, Higher Education Department, Block C-3, 2 nd and 3rd Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. The Principal, Acharya Pant Shree Grindh Muni naam Sahab Government P.G. College Kawardha, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh

---- Respondents

WPS No. 4241 of 2022

• Pooja Sahu D/o Mushan Lal Sahu, Aged About 28 Years, Working as Guest Faculty (Commerce) at Govt. Naveen College, Silouti, District : Dhamtari, 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. Naveen College, Silouti, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

---- Respondents WPS No. 4248 of 2022

• Girish Das S/o Chhedi Das, Aged About 28 Years, Working as Guest Faculty (Hindi) at Govt. Lahiri P.G. College, Chirmiri, District Korea (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. Lahiri P.G. College, Chirmiri, District Korea (C.G.)

---- Respondents

WPS No. 4250 of 2022

• Sagar Ram S/o Pati Ram Sahu, Aged About 26 Years, Working as Guest Faculty (Botany) at Yashwant Rao Meghawale Government College, Magarload, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

---- 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, Yashwant Rao Meghawale Government College, Magarload, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents WPS No. 4256 of 2022

• Naresh Kumar S/o Shyam Lal, Aged About 24 Years, Working as Guest Faculty (Social Science) at Govt. Larangsai P.G. College, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh

---- Petitioner Versus

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

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

3. Principal, Govt. Larangsai P.G. College, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh

---- Respondents

WPS No. 4260 of 2022

• Esal Khande S/o Rajkumar Khande, Aged About 28 Years, Working as Guest Faculty (English) at Govt. Shahid Virnarayan Singh College, Bilaigarh, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, 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. Shahid Virnarayan Singh College, Bilaigarh, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh

---- Respondents WPS No. 4276 of 2022

• Anjali Tirkey D/o Antony Tirkey, Aged About 26 Years, Working as Guest Faculty (Physics) at Govt. Shahid Virnarayan Sinh College, Bilaigarh, District Baloda Bazar-Bhathapara, 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. Shahid Virnarayan Singh College, Bilaigarh, District Baloda Bazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh

---- Respondents WPS No. 4284 of 2022

• Vandana D/o Ganesh Ram, Aged About 25 Years, Working as Guest Faculty (Mathematics) at Govt. Naveen College, Sonakhan, District : Baloda Bazar-Bhathapara, 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. Naveen College, Sonakhan, District Baloda Bazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh

---- Respondents

For Petitioners - Mr. Govind Prasad Dewangan and Mr. Rupendra Kumar Devangan, Advocates in WPS Nos.4238/2022, 4241/2022, 4248/2022, 4250/2022, 4256/2022, 4260/2022, 4276/2022 and 4284/2022. Mr. Vikas Dubey, Advocate in WPS No.3955/2022 and WPS No.3961/2022. For Respondents/State - Mr. Ali Asgar, Deputy Adv. General, Ms. Sunita Jain, Govt. Advocate, Mr. Ravi Bhagat, Deputy Govt. Advocate, Mr. Avinash Singh, Mr. Suyash Dhar Badgaiya, Mr. Kunal Das, Panel Lawyers.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant

Order On Board

27/06/2022

1. All these petitions are being heard and disposed off by this common

order as there is common question is involved.

2. All these 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.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the

respective 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, all 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 respondents 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

respondents authorities to accommodate the petitioners as Guest

Lecturers in the educational institutions, until the regular

appointment is made.

4. Learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents

oppose the petitions and the submissions made in this respect. It is

submitted that the petitioners have filed these petitions only on the

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, all the petitions may be dismissed.

5. 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.

6. It is further submitted that in recent development the State

Government has issued an order dated 12.10.2021, directing the

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.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

documents placed on record.

8. 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.

9. 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 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."

10. In view of the observations of Supreme Court in case of Adi 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.

11. 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 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 vacant posts by regular recruitment or by way of contractual appointment for which the Respondents shall be free."

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. In view of these judicial pronouncement, the case of the petitioners

is also fit to be considered on the same line. Hence, all the petitions