Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gopal Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 February, 2024
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Ravi Malimath, Vishal Mishra
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 13 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 2085 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1. GOPAL PATEL S/O BHAWANIRAM PATEL, AGED
ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCCUPATION: ATITHI
SHIKSAHK R/O VILALGE AND POST PUNASA
TEHSIL PUNASA DISTRICT KHANDWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. DEVENDRA BHARTI S/O SHRI GOKUL BHARTI,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION: ATITHI
SHIKSHAK R/O VILLAGE AND POST WARD NO.11
GHOGAL GANV, TEHSIL PUNASA, DISTRICT
KHANDWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. MAHENDRA UPADHYAY S/O SHRI
SATYANARAYAN UPADHYAY, AGED ABOUT 38
YEAR S , OCCUPATION: ATITHI SHIKSHAK R/O
VILLAGE AND POST WARD NO.17, NARMADA
NAGAR, TEHSIL PUNASA, DISTRICT KHANDWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. KRISHNA MANI SHUKLA D/O SHRI BASANT
PRASAD SHUKLA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: ATITHI SHIKSHAK R/O VILLAGE
AND POST BADRAO GAUTAMAN, TEHSIL
SIRMOUR, DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI A.K.PANDEY - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY SCHOOL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANINDYA
SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY
Signing time: 2/21/2024
4:17:40 PM
2
2. COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
GAUTAM NAGAR, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI B.D.SINGH - DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL)
This petition coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Vishal Mishra passed the following:
ORDER
The present petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs :-
"(i) That, by issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus, Hon'ble
Court be pleased to direct the respondents to decide the
representation filed by the petitioners for their regularization.
(ii) That, by issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus, Hon'ble
Court be pleased to direct the respondents to regularize the
petitioners on the post of Primary, Middle and Uccha Madhyamik
Sikshak.
(iii) Any other writ/direction/order which this Hon'ble Court deems
fit and proper including cost of this petition may kindly be
granted."
2. It is the case of the petitioners that they have been working on the post of
Guest Faculty Grade-I, Grade-II and Grade-III for the last 10 to 15 years. They
have also passed the Teachers Eligibility Test and are having B.Ed and D.Ed
qualification and therefore, they are entitled for regularisation on the said posts.
The petitioners have made representation before the respondents for their
regularisation. It is submitted that the similarly situated persons have filed Writ
Petition No.19278 of 2023 before this Court which was disposed off vide order
dated 06.10.2018 with a direction to the respondents to decide the
representation filed by the petitioners and pass an appropriate order in
accordance with law. In the present case, the petitioners have made
representation to the respondents for regularisation but the same has not been
decided till date. Hence, this petition.
3. A perusal of the record indicates that the petitioners have been working as
a Guest Faculty and they are still in service. The Guest Teachers are contractual
employees and they are being appointed for an academic session and in terms
of the series of judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by
this Court, the Guest Faculty cannot be replaced by another set of Guest
Faculty. The petitioners have been permitted to continue on the post of Guest
Faculty. But as far as claiming the benefits equivalent to that of a regular
employee is concerned, there cannot be any similarity between a Guest Teacher
and that of a regularly appointed Teacher. Counsel for the petitioner has failed
to demonstrate the aforesaid aspects of the matter. Therefore, claiming the relief
equivalent to that of the regular employees is not permissible. Both the cadres
of employees i.e. the Guest Teacher and the regular teacher cannot be
equalized. Regularization cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The petitioners
are only working as a guest faculties on a contract basis for an academic
session subject to continuation of their services looking to their performance.
As as far as rights of contractual employees are concerned, they do not have
any right asking for regularization of their services as has been held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India Vs. S.N.Goyal
reported in (2008) 8 SCC 92 as well as by a Division Bench of this Court in the
case of Brijendra Gupta vs. State of M.P. and Others (W.A.No.617 of 2015)
vide order dated 18.03.2016. The only distinguishing feature of Guest Faculty
and contract employee is that they being Teachers in the department having
being appointed after facing the appointment procedure cannot be replaced by
another Guest Faculty. Other conditions of contract employees are same.
Probably for this reason, it was held that Guest Faculty who taught in the earlier
session cannot be replaced by another Guest Faculty. In absence of any rules
for regularisation to support their case that on what basis the regularisation can
be given, no mandamus can be issued directing the authorities for regularization
of the petitioners. Mere continuous working for some time does not entitle the
petitioners to claim regularization. Under these circumstances, no relief can be
extended to the petitioners.
4. The writ petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to
costs.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
AM
