Chattisgarh High Court
Dhananjay Karsh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 May, 2022
1
N/AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WRIT PETITION (SERVICE) NO. 3295 OF 2022
Dhananjay Karsh, S/o Shri Lakhan Lal Karsh, aged about 25 years,
Occupation Guest Faculty (Sociology) at Government Atal Bihari Vajpayee
College, Pandatarai, District Kabirdham (C.G.)
... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Higher Education
Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur
(C.G.)
2. Additional Director, Directorate of Higher Education Department, Atal
Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)
3. Principal, Government Atal Bihari Vajpayee College, Pandatarai,
District Kabirdham (C.G.)
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Ms. Monika Thakur, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. Ravi Bhagat, Dy. Govt. Adv.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order on Board
(06/05/2022)
1. Grievance of the Petitioner in the present Writ Petition is that since he
was working as a Guest Lecturer under the Respondent No.3 for the
academic session 2021-22, the Respondents should not be permitted to
replace her 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 his services also were satisfactory as there is no
complaint whatsoever so far as his competency is concerned. Further
contention of learned Counsel for Petitioner is 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 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 27.2.2017, whereby 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 Panel Lawyer opposing the Writ Petition submits that it is a
case where no cause of action has till date arisen, inasmuch as the
Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition only on apprehension and
since there is no cause of action, the matter is premature and deserves to
be dismissed.
5. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal
of record, what is admitted is that the appointment so made is 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 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 dissatisfactory. 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
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 Guest Lecturer under the Respondent No.3 for the subject
against which the Petitioner was engaged.
8. It is however made clear that the said 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 in this regard before Respondent No.1 who in turn would
take a policy decision so far as the remuneration part payable to the Guest
Lecturers is concerned, keeping in view of the guidelines that have been
laid down by the UGC.
10. With aforesaid observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy)
Judge
/sharad/
