Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Alka Ragunath vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 August, 2024
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1 WA-1743-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA
ON THE 7 th OF AUGUST, 2024
WRIT APPEAL No. 1743 of 2023
DR. ALKA RAGUNATH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Brindavan Tiwari, counsel for the appellants.
Shri Bhuwan Gautam, Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Akash Sharma, counsel for respondent No.2.
Shri Chiranjeev Saboo, counsel for respondent No.3.
ORDER
Per: Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Heard finally with the consent of both the parties.
The present writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh
Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 assails
the order dated 13.09.2023 passed in Writ Petition No. 9240/2020 by the
learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 2/University
had issued an advertisement dated 30.08.2018 inviting applications from
eligible candidates for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor /
Lecturer as Guest Faculty. After undergoing due process, appellants were
2 WA-1743-2023
appointed on the post of Assistant Professors/Lecturers as Guest Faculty vide
order dated 03.01.2019 passed by respondent No.2. All the appellants
possessed requisite eligibility conditions for appointment on the aforesaid
posts as prescribed by the University Grant Commission (UGC). They were
appointed as guest faculty against the vacant post of Assistant
Professor/Lecturer in different subjects on honorarium basis of Rs. 1,500/-
per working day and monthly honorarium minimum 30,000/-. Their
engagement was extended from time to time. Thereafter in the year 2020,
another advertisement was issued for the post on which the appellants were
already working as guest faculty. Appellants had already put in 3 years of
engagement. Being aggrieved, appellants filed Writ Petition No. 9240 of
2020 challenging the advertisement dated 30.05.2020.
3. The contention of the appellants before the learned Single Judge
was that they have been selected for the aforementioned posts after
undergoing due selection process. They were selected and given
appointment and were continuing till issuance of the advertisement in the
year 2020. Appellants are not back door entrants. The respondents had
issued advertisement in the year 2020 for the posts on which the appellants
were working. The contention before the learned Single Judge was that the
appellants had already earned experience in teaching therefore, issuance of
advertisement is arbitrary, unjust, illegal and liable to be set aside. The
appellants are also eligible for salary as per the UGC guidelines. The fresh
advertisements intends to replace the adhoc arrangement by another adhoc
arrangement without filling the regular vacant post. Therefore, in the facts
3 WA-1743-2023
and circumstances, prayer was made to allow the appellants to continue to
work on the post already held by them.
4. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by passing the
following order :
''14. In the present case, vide advertisement dated 30.08.2018, the petitioners
were invited to work as Guest Faculty in various subjects. Thereafter, vide
order dated 03.01.2019, the petitioners were appointed for the period of two
months i.e. up to February, 2019, however, it was extended up to 30.06.2019,
thereafter, for further six months from 06.07.2019. The appointments were
purely contractual. So far as the impugned advertisement is concerned, again
petitioners were invited for engagement of Guest Faculty in various subjects.
The petitioners are only four in number, but there is a requirement of
engagement of other
teachers on contract basis as per the students - teachers ratio as per the UGC
Regulations. Since the advertisement has been issued to engage other visiting
Faculty, therefore, the action of the respondent is justifiable. Initially, the
appointment of the petitioners came to an end. There is no bar in the new
advertisement for applying for the said post, however, the impugned
advertisement was issued in the year 2020 and more than three years have
passed. Now the policy has been changed instead of appointing Guest
Faculties the colleges and universities are going for Visiting Faculties, hence,
no writ can be issued in favour of the petitioners.
15. In view of the above, Writ Petition stands dismissed.''
5. Being aggrieved, appellants have filed the present writ appeal on
the same grounds which were raised before the learned Single Judge.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the
decision in Hargurpartap Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, (2007) 13
SCC 294 and also the decision in case of Ratanlal and others Vs. State of
Haryana and others, AIR 1987 SC 478 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has
allowed the petitioners to continue to work on the contract basis till regular
selections are made on minimum of pay scale.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants has also relied on the judgment
in the case of Ramveer Singh Gurjar and ors. Vs. State of M.P. And Ors.,
4 WA-1743-2023
W.P.No. 4716/2016 (Gwalior) decided on 29.09.2016 wherein the same
issue was involved i.e. ''whether an adhoc Guest Faculty can be replaced by
another adhoc Guest Faculty in absence of any regular selection process''.
The learned Single Bench allowed the writ petition by setting aside the
advertisement and directed that the petitioners therein shall continue to work
on their respective post till the regular selections are made and also that the
petitioners are entitled to get salary in accordance with the UGC circulars.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondent/State had filed Writ
Appeal No. 386/2016 which came to be decided vide order dated 08.02.2017
affirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Against the order
passed in the writ appeal, Civil appeals No. 3084-3088 of 2022 (Manish
Gupta & Anr. vs. President Jan Bhagidari Samiti & Ors.) was filed before the
Apex Court which was disposed of affirming the orders passed in the writ
petition as well as the writ appeal and also directed that the appellants therein
would be entitled to continue on their respective posts till they are replaced
by the regularly selected candidates.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has stated
that the advertisement has been issued for appointment on various posts on
temporary basis for a fixed term or on completion of session, whichever is
earlier as a stop gap arrangement. It is further contended that the learned
Single Judge was right in coming to the conclusion that the aforesaid
advertisement does not confer any right on the candidates who have applied
for the aforesaid post as the same is not a regular post. It is submitted that as
soon as the contract is over, the appointment automatically comes to an end
5 WA-1743-2023
and candidates have no right to continue in service. However, they can
apply in pursuance of the fresh advertisement and if selected, can get new
appointment. It is up to the employer to permit them to continue in service
or not.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the order dated
07.08.2023 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.
19181/2023 (Principal Seat) in case of Kuldeep Jatav & Anr. vs. State of MP
& Anr. wherein the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the
appointment was purely temporary for a limited period, therefore, no
indefeasible right is created on the petitioners asking for continuation of their
service and the authorities have rightly issued the advertisement.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
11. So far as the judgment in the case of Kuldeep Jatav (supra) is
concerned the facts are distinguishable in as much as the issue with regard to
replacing one guest faculty with another guest faculty was not the issue in
the aforesaid case.
12. In the present case, the learned Single Judge has erred in
dismissing the writ petition in as much as the issue with regard to replacing
of guest faculty with another guest faculty was not considered at all. The
Apex Court has already considered this issue and upheld the orders passed by
the learned Single Judge as well as the Appellate Court in case of Manish
Gupta (supra) wherein similar issue had cropped up.
13. In view of the aforesaid, applying the ratio as decided in the case
o f Manish Gupta (supra) the appellants in the present case are entitled to
6 WA-1743-2023
continue to work on their respective posts till regular selections are made.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 13.09.2023 passed by the learned
Single Judge is hereby set aside. The advertisements dated 30.05.2020 and
03.10.2022 (Annexure P/14 B) are also quashed. It is directed that the
appellants shall continue to work on their respective posts till regular
selections are made.
14. With the aforesaid directions, appeal stands allowed and disposed
of.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI) (DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA)
JUDGE JUDGE
vidya
