Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhailal Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through ... on 27 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 27 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 3006 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
BHAILAL SAHU, S/O SHIR RAMLAKHAN SAHU, AGED
ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION: EX- GUEST TEACHER,
GOVERNMENT EGS PRIMARY SCHOOL, PIPARGADAI,
R/O DHANWAI, NIGARI, DISTRICT SINGRAULI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI P.K. VERMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
DEPARTMENT, VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, DISTRICT
SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT HIGHER SECONDARY
SCHOOL, NIWAS, DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. HEAD MASTER, GOVERNMENT PRIMARY
SCHOOL PIPARGADAI (DHANWAHI), BLOCK
DEOSAR, DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI PIYUSH JAIN - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS
NO.1 AND 2/STATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHALINI
LANDGE
Signing time: 3/5/2024
6:00:13 PM
2
Vishal Mishra passed the following:
ORDER
The present petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) That, this Hon'ble Court be please to issue a writ in the nature of
mandamus directing respondent authority to decide the
representation of the petitioner and restore the service of the
petitioner as guest teacher.
(ii) That any other relief as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in
the circumstances of the case, may also kindly be granted."
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Guest Teacher in
Government Primary School, Pipargadai (Dhanwahi), Block Deosar, District
Singrauli since 2019 and was kept in the panel for the UECS, Pipargadai. On
10.07.2023 a proposal was made to engage the petitioner for the academic year
2023-24 and the same was accepted. The petitioner was continuously working
since July, 2023 to October, 2023. However, all of a sudden on 31.10.2023 he
was removed without assigning any reason and without any speaking order by
the respondent No.3. The name of the petitioner has also been removed from
the online portal. He has submitted a detailed representation to the respondent
No.2 on 06.11.2023, but to no avail. Hence, the present petition has been filed.
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. Therefore, no relief can be extended
to the petitioner.
4. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
5. The record indicates that the petitioner was inducted as Guest Teacher for
a limited period. It is not a 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. 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. Admittedly, as 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.
7. The petitioner is always at liberty to pursue his pending representation with
the authorities.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
THK
