Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lal Bahadur Prasad Namdev vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 May, 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 9 th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 11449 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1. LAL BAHADUR PRASAD NAMDEV S/O
MATHURAN PRASAD NAMDEV, AGED ABOUT 41
YE A R S , OCCUPATION: ITI GUEST FACULTY
TRADE FITTER GOVT ITI DEOSAR DISTRICT
SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. KRISHNA CHAND SONWANI S/O SHRI AMARJEET
SONWANI, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
GUEST FACULTY (MEHAMAN PRAVAKATA)
ELECTRICIAN TRADE, GOVT. ITI BARIGAWAN
DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI SATYA PRAKASH MISHRA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TECHNIAL EDUCAITON
AND SKILL DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, SKILL DEVELOPMENT
D EPARTM EN T REGIONAL OFFICER REWA,
DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE DIRECTOR, SKILL DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTM ENT NEAR SAI MANDIR, NARMADA
ROAD, JABALPUR DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRAINING INSTITUTE (ITI) DEOSAR DISTRICT
SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANINDYA
SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY
Signing time: 5/16/2024
7:07:53 PM
2
5. PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRAINING INSTITUTE (ITI) BARGAWAN DISTRICT
SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. SHRI LAL HARIJAN S/O SHRI JAGJAHIR HARIJAN,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCCUPATION: GUEST
FACULTY GOVT. ITI DEOSAR (FITTER) DISTRICT
SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARAM S/O SHRI RAM RAJ
SHARAM, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
ITI GUEST FACULTY (ELECTRICIAN) GOVT. ITI
BARGAWAN DISTRICT SINGRAULI (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:
ORDER
The present petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs :-
"I. It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to call entire records, files of proceeding of its kind
perusal.
II. To set aside the impugned order dtd. 2.4.2024 contained in
Annexure P/4 and P/5 issued by respondent No.4 and 5
respectively.
III. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an
appropriate writ commanding the respondents to give first
preference to in place of the respondents No.6 and 7.
IV. That, it is, therefore, prayed before this Hon'ble Court may
kindly be pleased to award 4 bonus marks in each academic session
on completion of every academic session and 20 bonus marks for
experience of maximum 5 years in regular recruitment should be
added/circulated in total obtained marks of Regular Training
Officer Grade 3 recruitment.
V. IV. That, it is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ commanding the
respondents to accommodate the petitioners in any place of the
state wherever the post is vacant in the interest of justice.
VI. Any other reliefs which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstance of the case including cost of
the litigation may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioners."
2. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners are working under the
respondents as Guest Faculty for the last many years in the Government
Industrial Training Institute. The petitioners fulfill all the requisite qualification
and were appointed as Guest Faculty. It is submitted that the petitioners have
been working as Guest Faculty and their candidatures may also be considered
for regular post of Teachers. The petitioners have made representation before
the Authorities but till date no action has been taken.
3. It is their case that despite the fact that the petitioners are eligible to be
appointed to the post, they have not been permitted to continue on the post of
Guest Faculty. The petitioners have been successfully discharging their duties
as Guest Faculty. It is their case that their juniors have been retained on the
regular post and they have been replaced by the juniors on the post of Guest
Faculty. 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 therein be
continued as guest faculty teachers until and unless regular appointments are
made, it is prayed that a similar relief be extended to the petitioners and they
may also be permitted to be continued as guest faculty till the regular
appointment is made.
4. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the respondents 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 has been settled that there
cannot be any replacement of Guest Faculty by another set of Guest Faculty. It
is not the case of the petitioners that they are being replaced by another set of
Guest Faculty, rather they are being replaced by a regular appointee on the same
subject, therefore, it cannot be said that the juniors have been retained and the
petitioners have been replaced. Hence, the reliefs as sought for cannot be
granted.
5. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
6. The record indicates that the petitioners were inducted as Guest Faculty
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
the academic session. The petitioners cannot claim continuation of services as a
matter of right. They have to show that they have 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. The petitioners have been
replaced by a regular appointee and they have not been replaced by another set
of Guest Faculty. Admittedly there is no replacement in the matter. They are
contractual employees and, therefore, no right has accrued to the petitioners
until and unless they are being replaced by a contractual employee. In the
present case, the petitioners have been replaced by a regular appointee and,
therefore, no relief can be extended to the petitioners. However, the petitioners
may always participate in the selection process if any fresh advertisement is
issued by the respondents for the working of Guest Faculty.
7. The writ petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to
costs.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
AM
