Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shobha Gharde vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 February, 2023
Author: Chief Justice
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 27 th OF FEBRUARY, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 3554 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SHOBHA GHARDE D/O SHRI LALCHAND, AGED ABOUT
26 YEARS, R/O KAMTHI BALAGHAT DISTRICT
BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI RUPESH PATEL - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TECHNICAL SKILLED
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. JOINT DIRECTOR SKILL DEVELOPMENT
REGIONAL OFFICE, BALAGHAT, DISTRICT
BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. PRINCIPAL GOVT. TRAINING INSTITUTE (ITI)
SEONI DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI RITWIK PARASHAR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )
This petition coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Vishal Mishra, passed the following:
Signature Not Verified
ORDER
SAN
The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs :-
Digitally signed by ANINDYA SUNDAR
MUKHOPADHYAY
Date: 2023.03.04 16:25:44 IST
"A. Direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue as
Guest faculty in her respective Government Industrial Training
Institute still regular selections are made.
B. Any other relief as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of
the case, along with the cost of this writ petition be also awarded."
2. It is the case of the petitioner that she has been working as Guest Faculty
at Government Industrial Training Institute for the past several years. That, she
possesses all the requisite educational qualifications for the appointment as
Guest Faculty. She was appointed as Guest Faculty after undergoing due
process of selection. The performance of the petitioner is satisfactory and there
are no complaints against her. That, the petitioner was appointed in pursuance
to the directions issued by the Director, Skilled Development Department. It is
argued that the contractual period of the petitioner is coming to an end on
11.03.2023 in pursuance to the letter dated 11.04.2021 issued by the Additional
Director, Skilled Development which provides that the petitioner shall be
engaged for a period of 11 months or till 11.03.2023, whichever is earlier.
3. It is submitted that the petitioner is having every right to continue as Guest
Faculty until regular appointments are made by the respondents/authorities and
she should be permitted to work as a Guest Faculty in the said Department.
That, the action of the respondents in conducting fresh selection for the
appointment to the post of Guest Faculty is illegal and arbitrary. Placing reliance
upon a judgement passed in W.P No.6159 of 2022, whereby this Court has
granted an interim protection in favour of the Guest Teachers who have already
worked for considerable time or in the previous session, the petitioner has
prayed for the similar relief.
4. Counsel for the respondents/State has objected to the averments made in
Signature Not Verified
SAN
the writ petition pointing out the fact that the appointment of the petitioners was
Digitally signed by ANINDYA SUNDAR
contractual in nature. It is only for a period of 11 months or till 11.03.2023,
MUKHOPADHYAY
Date: 2023.03.04 16:25:44 IST
whichever is earlier. The working of the petitioner is coming to an end on
11.03.2023. There is only an apprehension that the petitioner will be replaced by
another Guest Faculty, therefore, no interim protection can be granted to the
petitioner because the appointment of the petitioner is contractual in nature. It
is submitted that the petition is pre-mature as no cause of action arises in the
present petition only on the ground that the contractual period of the petitioner
is coming to an end on 11.03.2023. The judgement passed by the Court in W.P
No.6159 of 2022 (Pradeep Kumar Yadav and Others Vs. M.P State and
Others) is also to the extent that in case the petitioners have worked in the
previous session and are being replaced by another set of contractual
employees. Therefore, in absence of any cogent explanation or justification
regarding replacement of the petitioner, no relief can be extended to the
petitioner. Hence, he has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
6. Admittedly, the appointment of the petitioner was on contractual basis as a
Guest Faculty for a period of 11 months. It is not disputed that the petitioner
has not been replaced by another set of Guest Faculty. Merely working for a
period of 11 months does not entitle candidates like the petitioner to claim
indefeasible right of continuation of her work. The judgement passed in the case
of Pradeep Kumar Yadav (supra) is of no help to the petitioner as the same
speaks of the fact that the candidate should have worked in the previous
session and there should be his replacement by another set of contractual
employee. In the absence of any justification to the aforesaid, no relief can be
extended to the petitioner. From the perusal of the record, it is seen that the
Signature Not Verified
SAN
petitioner is still working in the respondent/Department. There is nothing on
Digitally signed by ANINDYA SUNDAR
MUKHOPADHYAY
Date: 2023.03.04 16:25:44 IST
record to show that any steps are being taken by the respondents to dispense
with the services of the petitioner. Only an apprehension is being raised by the
petitioner with respect to dispensing with of her services. The petitioner has not
filed any relevant documents to demonstrate that the respondents are taking any
steps for removing her from services.
7. In such circumstances, no relief can be extended to the petitioner as the
respondents have not yet taken any steps for removing her from services and
the petitioner is still working as a Guest Faculty. Hence, the judgment passed in
the case of Pradeep Kumar Yadav (supra) is not applicable to the case of the
petitioner. From the aforesaid, it is apparently clear that the contractual period
of the petitioner is coming to an end on 11.03.2023 and, therefore, no cause of
action arises to the petitioner. The contract appointee is not having any
indefeasible right to ask for continuation of his contract period.
8. As no cause of action arises to the petitioner, the petition itself is pre-
mature. The same is accordingly dismissed.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
AM
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by ANINDYA SUNDAR
MUKHOPADHYAY
Date: 2023.03.04 16:25:44 IST
