Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sitaram Prajapati vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 January, 2022
Author: Vivek Agarwal
1
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP No. 693 of 2022
(SITARAM PRAJAPATI AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Jabalpur, Dated : 17-01-2022
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Amit Seth, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Amit Mishra, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
has been filed on behalf of the petitioners claiming a direction that
the advertisement Annexure P/1 dated 14.12.2021 is illegal &
arbitrary and thus be quashed inasmuch as the petitioners are working
as Guest Faculty Trainers in respect of Industrial Training Institutes
(for short "I.T.Is") and as per the decision of the Supreme Court as
well as this Court, one set of contractual employees/Guest Faculties
are not required to be replaced with another set of Guest Faculties
and the advertisement can be issued only for filling up vacancies,
which have occurred either on account of non-availability of Guest
Faculties/Regular Faculties.
Shri Amit Seth, learned counsel for the petitioners places
reliance on the decision of Division Bench of this Court in Writ
Appeal No.418/2017 (State of Madhya Pradesh versus Puneet
Mohan Khare) decided on 5.2.2018, wherein it is held that the State
cannot be permitted to outsource the Trainer for dispensing with the
services of contractual employees as Trainers, who have discharged
the work on contract basis, are available. The Division Bench of this
Court has also held as under:-
"(1) The appellants shall not engage another contractual
Signature Not Verified
SAN
employee including outsourcing the services of Trainers.
Digitally signed by AMIT JAIN
Date: 2022.01.20 18:08:04 IST
(2) In case a Trainer in a particular Trade is not required at
a particular Centre, the appellants shall avail the services of such
Trainers in the other Skill Centres, subject to the consent of such
Trainer to work in another Centre.
(3) The services of the Trainer in the other Training
Centres shall not be dispensed with unless the appellants find that
services of the Trainers are not required in any of the Centres and
its need shall not arise in the near future.
(4) But if in future, any Trainer is required in a particular
Trade after dispensing the service of a Trainer, the appellants
shall reengage the Trainers, who were engaged at an earlier point
of time."
Reliance is also placed by learned counsel for the petitioners on
the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar
Pradesh & Others versus Hirendra Pal Singh & Others (2011) 5
SCC 305 wherein it has been held that identical cases need for
consistencies in interim orders. Reliance is further placed on the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bir Bajrang Kumar
versus State of Bihar & Others AIR 1987 SC 1345 wherein the
Supreme Court has held that cases involving identical points must be
given identical treatment by the Court, otherwise it may create an
anomalous position as there may be a possibility of contradictory
orders being rendered in similar type of cases by the same Court.
Shri Amit Mishra, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State in his turn submits that another Division Bench of
this High Court while deciding Writ Petition No.18166/2019
Signature Not Verified
SAN
(Smt.Anita Sharma versus State of Madhya Pradesh & Others)
Digitally signed by AMIT JAIN
Date: 2022.01.20 18:08:04 IST
vide order dated 6.9.2019 has held that Guest Faculties can be
allowed to participate in the fresh recruitment process but they cannot
claim any right to be engaged dehors the merits. Reliance is also
placed on the Division Bench Decision of Gwalior Bench of Madhya
Pradesh High Court passed in Writ Appeal No.386/2016 & Writ
Appeal No.387/2016 & other connected matters (State of
Madhya Pradesh versus Ramveer Singh Gurjar) decided on
8.2.2017 wherein it has been held that the petitioners cannot be
continued to function as Guest Faculties in perpetuity till the post of
Assistant Professor is filled up and for advancing few lectures in a
week, they could not be treated as par with the Assistant Professor.
The petitioners have participated in the selection process and they are
estopped from challenging the procedure for appointment of Guest
Faculties. Thus, in view of aforementioned decisions of the Division
Bench, no relief can be extended in favour of the petitioners.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going
through the record so also taking into consideration a fact that the
petitioners' counsel has not disputed a fact that the petitioners
participated in the selection process in pursuance of advertisement
Annexure P/1 dated 14.12.2021 and thereafter filed this writ petition
on 6.1.2022, the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of
Madan Lal & Others versus State of Jammu and Kashmir &
Others (1995) 3 SCC 486 is relevant wherein it is held that a
selection process including an interview cannot be challenged by a
candidate, who takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview
and then only because the result of interview was not acceptable to
him, turn around and contends that the process of interview was
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by AMIT JAIN
Date: 2022.01.20 18:08:04 IST
unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted.
In view of the said legal pronouncement of law and also taking
into consideration a fact that even a Division Bench in Writ Appeal
No.418/2017 (State of Madhya Pradesh versus Puneet Mohan
Khare) decided on 5.2.2018 has held that the law laid down in the
case of Mohammad Abdul Kadir & Another versus Director
General of Police, Assam & Others (2009) 6 SCC 611 will not be
of any help to the respondents inasmuch as a contractual employee
has no right to continue on the post after expiry of the contract period
and also taking into consideration a fact that the State Authorities
cannot be precluded from looking for a better teaching talent so as to
impart better quality of instruction to the pupil, when selection
process has been initiated by inviting applications and the petitioners
have been permitted to participate in the selection process with a
further stipulation that they will be given marks for their experience,
this Court would have shown indulgence but for the fact that the
petitioners have filed this writ petition after participating in the
selection process and, therefore, in the light of the law laid down by
the Supreme Court in the case of Madan Lal & Others versus State
of Jammu and Kashmir (supra), no indulgence is required as that is
the distinctive factor from the cases cited by the petitioners and,
therefore, for this simple analogy that the petitioners have participated
in the selection process, the law laid down in the case of Bir Bajrang
Kumar versus State of Bihar (supra) is distinguishable on its own
facts.
Resultantly, this writ petition fails & is dismissed.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by AMIT JAIN
Date: 2022.01.20 18:08:04 IST
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
amit
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by AMIT JAIN
Date: 2022.01.20 18:08:04 IST
