Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Dhananjay Singh Chandel vs Higher Education Department on 26 March, 2021
Author: Sujoy Paul
1 W.A. No.759/2020
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:
BENCH AT INDORE
WA No.759/2020
Dr. Dhanjay Singh Chandel & 10 others ...................... Appellants
Vs.
State of MP & Others ..........................Respondents
...............................................................................................................
Coram:
Justice Sujoy Paul, Judge
Justice Shailendra Shukla, Judge
...............................................................................................................
Presence :
Shri Brindavan Tiwari, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Shrey Raj Saxena, Dy. Advocate General for the
respondent-State.
Shri Akash Sharma, Advocate for the respondent/University
through Video Conferencing.
Shri Ajinkya Dagaonkar, standing counsel for the UGC through
Video Conferencing.
...............................................................................................................
Heard on : 24/03/2021 through video conferencing
...............................................................................................................
JUDGMENT
(Passed on this 26th day of March, 2021)
Per: Sujoy Paul, J. :
This intra Court appeal takes exception to the order passed in
WP No.9240/2020 dated 13/07/2020.
2) The case of appellant in nutshell is that the appellants were
selected by a duly constituted committee which after following the
proper procedure selected them to be appointed as Guest Faculty
Teacher. The appointment order dated 03/01/2019 makes it clear
that appointment was in furtherance of decision of a duly
constituted committee. Heavy reliance is placed on office Order
dated 07/09-03-1999 (Annexure P/4) issued by the University
wherein it is noted that as per the meeting of Executive Council
dated 15/01/2019, as long as regular appointments are not made,
the vacant post may be filled up by appointing guest faculties. The
posts are still lying vacant. One set of guest faculty cannot be
permitted to be substituted by another set of guest faculty. This
action runs contrary to the judgment of Supreme Court reported in
AIR 1987 SC 478 (Ratanlal & Ors. vs. State of Haryana) and AIR
1992 SC 2130 (State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Piara Singh & Ors.).
3) Shri Brindavan Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants
urged that learned Single Judge has not considered these aspects
and dismissed the writ petition solely on the ground that appellants
were appointed for a period of one year and University has already
initiated the process of recruitment and persons are going to be
appointed based upon their merits. It is urged that the learned
Single Judge has failed to see that the new advertisement was not
for regular recruitment but to recruit the teachers as guest faculty
only. This relevant fact has not been considered by learned Single
Judge. It is further urged that the respondent/University is bound by
University Grants Commission's Notification published in the
official gazette called as "UGC Regulations On Minimum
Qualifications For Appointment Of Teachers And Other
Academic Staff In Universities and Colleges And Measures For
The Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018"
(Regulations). The University is under an obligation to recruit the
persons as per this Notification. As long as regular selection does
not take place, the appellants cannot be substituted by another set
of guest teachers.
4) Shri Shrey Raj Saxena, learned Dy. Advocate General
submits that the dispute is between the appellants and the
University. The State has no role to play.
5) Shri Akash Sharma, learned counsel for the
respondent/University submits that it is not established that
appellants were appointed against clear and vacant posts. The
appellants have no legal right whatsoever to continue beyond the
period of one year for which they were appointed. The University
rectified the initial appointment order wherein previously it was
mentioned that appellants were appointed against vacant posts.
6) Shri Dagaonkar, learned Standing Counsel for UGC placed
heavy reliance on Clause-13 of the said Regulations and urged that
respondent/University is bound by these regulations. The UGC was
not put to notice by learned Single Judge, otherwise UGC would
have apprised the Writ Court about applicability of regulations in
the recruitment process of University. Fate of the matter in that
event could have been different.
7) No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties.
8) We have heard the parties at length and perused the record.
9) Clause-13 of the Regulation reads as under:-
"13.0 Appointments on Contract Basis
The teachers should be appointed on contract basis only
when it is absolutely necessary and when the student-
teacher ratio does not satisfy the laid-down norms. In
any case, the number of such appointments should not
exceed 10% of the total number of faculty positions in
a College/University. The qualifications and selection
procedure for appointing them should be the same as
those applicable to a regularly-appointed teacher.
The fixed emoluments paid to such contract teachers
should not be less than the monthly gross salary of a
regularly-appointed Assistant Professor. Such
appointments should not be made initially for more
than one academic session, and the performance of any
such entrant teacher should be reviewed for academic
performance before reappointing him/her on contract
basis for another session. Such appointments on
contract basis may also be resorted to when absolutely
necessary to fill vacancies arising due to maternity
leave, child-care leave, etc."
(Emphasis supplied)
10) Indisputably, UGC was not put to notice by learned Single
Judge. Similarly, learned Single Judge has not examined the fact
that the appellants are intended to be substituted by another set of
guest faculty and not by regularly selected incumbent. Had it been
a regular selection by issuance of impugned advertisement, the
matter would have been different. The learned Single Judge was
required to examine (i) whether the University is bound by the
Regulations aforesaid issued by UGC. If yes, whether impugned
advertisement is in consonance with those Regulations. (ii)
Whether there exists any other statutory/enabling provision with
the University to continue to fill up the posts year after year by
different set of guest faculties. In other words, in absence of any
enabling provision, whether action of University in appointing
guest faculties for a year and then going for another recruitment of
similar nature is justifiable and is good for the educational health of
the institution and in the best interest of the teachers and students.
(iii) Whether the posts against which appellants were appointed
were lying vacant. (iv) Whether petitioners can claim
reappointment till regular selection is made.
11) All these aspects are required to be gone into by learned
Single Judge. In the impugned order, the learned Single Judge
opined that "the University has already initiated the process of
recruitment and the persons are going to be appointed based upon
their merits." It is completely lost sight that impugned recruitment
is not initiated in order to fill up the posts on substantive/regular
basis. Thus, aforesaid questions raised by the appellants and other
side needs to be adverted to by the Writ Court. In absence thereof,
the impugned order dated 13/07/2020 cannot be permitted to stand.
12) Resultantly, order dated 13/07/2020 passed in WP
No.9240/2020 is set aside. The WP No.9240/2020 is restored to its
original number.
13) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion
on the merits of the case. Registry is directed to list the WP
No.9240/2020 on 01/04/2021 by reflecting the name of Shri
Ajinkya Dagaonkar in the Cause List.
(SUJOY PAUL) (SHAILENDRA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
soumya
Digitally signed by
SOUMYA RANJAN
DALAI
Date: 2021.03.26
14:32:36 +05'30'
