SHIVENDRA SAHU vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (SERVICE) NO.

4372 OF 2023 1.

Shivendra Sahu, S/o Shri Makhan Lal Sahu, aged about 33 years, working as Guest Lecturer (English) at Govt.

Kunj Bihari Choubey College, Lal Bahadur Nagar, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2.

Jameen Dewangan, W/o Shri Ajay Kumar Dewangan, aged about 29 years, working as Guest Lecturer (Physics) at Govt.

Kunj Bihari Choubey College, Lal Bahadur Nagar, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ...

Petitioner(s) Versus 1.

State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2.

Additional Director, Directorate of Higher Education Department, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3.

Principal, Govt.

Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr.

Jeet Ram Patel, Adv.

For Respondents : Mr.

Anmol Sharma, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P.

Sam Koshy Order on Board [11 /07/2023] 1.

Grievance of the Petitioners in the present Writ Petition is that since they were working as a Guest Lecturer under the Respondent No.3 for the academic session 2022-23, the Respondents should not be permitted to replace them by another set of contractual Guest Lecturers.

2.

Contention of learned Counsel for Petitioners is that the Petitioners have undergone a due process of selection for being appointed as a Guest Lecturer and that their services also were satisfactory as there is no complaint whatsoever so far as their competency is concerned.

Further contention of learned Counsel for Petitioners is that now that the academic session is over, the Respondents should not be permitted to go in for a fresh recruitment process for filling up of the posts of Guest Lecturers under the Respondent No.3 for the subject in which the Petitioners were taking classes.

3.

Learned Counsel for Petitioners relies upon the Order dated 27.2.2017 passed by this Court in W.P. rt in W.P.(S) No.4406/2016 [Manju Gupta & others v.

State of Chhattisgarh & others] whereby similarly placed Guest Lecturers under the Director (Industrial Training Institute) have been granted protection from being replaced by another set of Guest Lecturers.

4.

Learned State Counsel, however, opposing the petition, submits that it is a case where no cause of action has till date arisen, inasmuch as the Petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition only on apprehension and since there is no cause of action, the matter is premature and deserves to be dismissed.

5.

Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of record, what is admitted is that the Petitioners were appointed vide Annexure P-1 which has a specific clause mentioning that the appointment so made is till an alternative arrangement is made by way of regular recruitment/contractual/transfer.

Further from the records, it also does not appear that the performance of the Petitioners at any point of time was found to be unsatisfactory.

6.

In the case of “Manju Gupta” (supra), this Court in paragraphs 8 to 11 has held as under:- “8.

True it is, that the Petitioners' status is that of a Guest Lecturer but that does not mean that they do not have any right.

There is always a legitimate expectation of the Petitioners that since the filling up of the posts has not been initiated by way of a regular appointment or by contractual appointments, the Petitioners would be permitted to continue.

9.

The undisputed fact is that the Petitioners were given appointment only on undertaking given by them pursuant to an advertisement by the Respondents.

In the undertaking which was made to be furnished by the Petitioners, they were made to undertake that their appointment would be till the posts are filled up by regular/contractual appointment. pointment.

This by itself clearly gives an indication that unless the Respondents fill up the sanctioned vacant posts by either regular recruitment or by way of contractual appointment, the Petitioners would continue as Guest Lecturers.

On the practical aspect also the fact that the Petitioners are discharging the duties of Guest Lecturers for last more than 1-2 years, itself is a good ground for permitting the Petitioners to continue on the said posts as Guest Lecturers, simply for the reason of their experience on the said post, as fresh recruitment would mean that persons with no or less experience would be participating in the recruitment process, which also would not be in the interest of the students who are undertaking training in the respective institutions.

10.

Taking into consideration the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Piara Singh (supra) and which has been further reiterated in the case of Dr.

Chanchal Goyal (supra), this Court has no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that the advertisement (Annexure P-1) so issued by the Respondents is definitely not in the interest of the students undertaking training at Industrial Training Institute, Ambikapur, and the same would amount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the same therefore deserves to be and is accordingly quashed.

The advertisement would be deemed to be quashed only to the extent of the recruitment against the posts at which the Petitioners are discharging.

That is to say, the Respondents would be entitled to fill up the posts which are lying vacant by way of Guest Lecturers where there are no Guest Lecturers available.

11.

It is directed that the Respondents would not be entitled for filling up the posts of Guest Lecturer by replacing the Petitioners unless the Respondents come up with a stand that the services of the Petitioners were dissatisfactory. isfactory.

The quashment of the advertisement issued by the Respondents would also not come in the way of the Respondents for filling up of the sanctioned vacant posts by regular recruitment or by way of contractual appointment for which the Respondents shall be free.” 7.

This Court, under the given circumstances, is inclined to accept the same analogy in the present case also.

Accordingly, it is ordered that unless there is any complaint received against the performance of Petitioners, the Respondents are restrained from going in for any fresh recruitment of Guest Lecturer under the Respondent No.3-College for the respective subject against which the Petitioners were engaged.

8.

It is however made clear that the said protection to the Petitioners would be only to the extent of not being replaced by another set of Guest Lecturers, unless the services are unsatisfactory which would be determined on the basis of the ACR of the Petitioners.

With aforesaid observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

Sd/- (P.

Sam Koshy) Judge /sharad/