Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lakhan Singh Sisodiya 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. 1098 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
LAKHAN SINGH SISODIYA S/O SHRI DIWAN SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED
R / O GRAM MENGRA KALA, TEHSIL BAIRASIYA,
DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SWAPNIL KHARE - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
SCHOOL SHIKSHAA VIBHAG MANTRALAYA
VALLABH BHAWAN, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. A AYU K T MADHYA PRADESH SASHAN LOK
SHIKSHAN SANCHALANALAY GAUTAM NAGAR
BHOPAL JILA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. JILA SHIKSHA ADHIKARI MADHYA PRADESH
SASHAN JILA SHIKSHA ADHIKARI KARYALAY
TULSI NAGAR BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SANKUL PRACHARYA SHASKIYA UCHCHTAR
MADHYAMIK VIDHYALAY NAZEERABAD TEHSIL
BAIRASIYA JILA BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. P R A C H A R Y A SASHKEEY UCHCHTAR
MADHYAMIK VIDHYALAY GRAM NAYSAMAND
TEHSIL BAIRASIYA JILA BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANINDYA
SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY
Signing time: 2/21/2024
4:17:40 PM
2
(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:
"vr% ekuuh; U;k;ky; egksn; ls fuosnu gS fd izfr ;kfpdkdrkZx.kksa dks funsZf'kr fd;k
tkos dh ;kfpdkdrkZ dks o"kZ 2023&2024 ds xf.kr oxZ 1 ds fy, vfrfFk f'k{kd ds in
ij fu;qDr fd;s tkus ds vkns'k iznku djrs gq, osru ,oa vU; ykHkksa dk Hkqxrku fd;s tkus
ds vkns'k o funZs'k iznku fd;s tkos tks U;k;ksfpr gksxk A vU; lgk;rk ,oa O;; tks
ekuuh; U;k;ky; mfpr le>s iznku djsa A "
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as a Guest Faculty
Maths Grade - 2 in Government Higher Secondary School, Nyasmand Tehsil
Barasiya District Bhopal vide order dated 05.09.2022 for the academic session
2022-2023. He had worked without any complaint. Despite the fact that the
petitioner is eligible to be appointed on regular post, he has not been permitted
to continue on the post of Guest Teacher. The Principal of the school has
restrained the petitioner from working on the ground of unsatisfactory work.
Placing reliance upon the order dated 26.04.2022 passed in WP No. 6159 of
2022 (Pradeep Kumar Yadav and others vs State of Madhya Pradesh and
others) whereby this Hon'ble Court has held that the petitioners be continued as
guest faculty teachers until and unless regular appointment are made, it is prayed
that a similar relief be extended to the petitioner and the petitioner may be
directed to continue as guest faculty till regular appointment is made.
3. The State counsel has vehemently opposed the contention stating that the
law with respect to the Guest Faculty has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court as well as by the Division Bench of this Court. A detailed order was
passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar
Yadav vs State of M.P. and others in WP No. 6159 of 2022 dated 26.04.2022
wherein it is settled that there cannot be any replacement of Guest Faculty by
another set of Guest Faculty. It is not the case of the petitioner that he is being
replaced by another set of Guest Faculty, rather the period for which the
petitioner was engaged as Guest Faculty is over. Therefore, no relief as such
can be extended to the petitioner.
4. Heard learned counsels for parties and perused the record.
5. The record indicates that the petitioner was inducted as Guest Teacher for
a limited period. It is not the case of replacement of Guest Faculty by another
set of Guest Faculty. Guest Faculties are contractual employees appointed for
academic session. The petitioner cannot claim continuation of services as a
matter of right. The term for which petitioner was appointed is over. He has to
show that he has been replaced by another set of Guest Faculty which is not
permissible in view of the judgment passed in the case of Saurabh Singh
Baghel and others vs State of M.P. and others reported in 2019 (1) MPLJ 643
and in the case of Pradeep Kumar Yadav (supra) wherein it has been settled
that there cannot be any replacement of a Guest Faculty by another set of a
Guest Faculty. As admittedly, there is no replacement in the matter, no relief
can be extended to the petitioner
6. The writ petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
AM
