Chattisgarh High Court
Pinti Devi vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 May, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Petition (S) No. 3244 of 2022
Pinti Devi D/o Shri Santu Ram, Aged About 28 Years, Guest Faculty
(Physics) At Government Dr. W.W. Patankar Girls PG College, Jail Road,
Durg, Dist. Durg C.G. R/o Village- Jeora, Post Jeora-Sirsa, District : Durg,
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, Government Dr. W.W. Patankar Girls PG College, Jail Road, Durg,
Dist. Durg C.G.
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Anupam Sharma, Advocate
For State : Mr. Suyash Dhar, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order On Board
05.05.2022
1. The grievance of petitioner in the present writ petition is that since the
petitioner was working as Guest Lecturer under respondent No.3 for the
academic year 2021-22, the respondents should not be permitted to replace
the petitioner 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 the service of petitioner also was satisfactory as there is no
complaint whatsoever, so far as the competency of petitioner is concerned.
It is further 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 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 27.02.2017, 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. Learned State counsel opposing the petition submits that it is a case where
no cause of action has till date arisen, inasmuch as the petitioner has 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 petitioner was appointed vide Annexure
P/1. The order of appointment specifically had a clause mentioning that the
appointment so made is till an alternative arrangement is made by way of
recruitment through regular/ contractual/ transfer.
6. Further from the records, it also does not appear that the performance of
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:-
"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
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 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 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 petitioner would be only to the
extent of not being replaced by another set of Guest Lecturer. 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 Lecturers under
the rules for contractual employment.
9. So far as the claim of remuneration as per the guidelines of UGC is
concerned, it would be open for petitioner to make a suitable representation
before respondent No.1 in this regard, who in turn would take a policy
decision as regards the remuneration part payable to the Guest Lecturers,
keeping in view the guidelines that have been laid down by the UGC.
10. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands
disposed off.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy)
Judge
Khatai
