Bhanupratap vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Petitioner has filed this writ petition for restraining the respondents from making fresh appointment as 'Guest Lecturer' and allowing him to continue as Guest Lecturer till regular appointment is made.

Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that after following due process, petitioner has been appointed as Guest Lecturer (Geography) in respondent No.3-College for the academic sessions 2022-23. During the tenure of petitioner, there was no complaint whatsoever at any point of time, so far as performance/competency of petitioner is concerned. Even then, respondent No.3 has issued advertisement dated 18.07.2023 (Annexure P-1) inviting fresh application for appointment as Guest Lecturer of different subjects for the academic session 2023-24, and therefore, petitioner apprehends that he may be replaced by another set of Guest Lecturer on contract basis. He submits that Coordinate Bench in WPS No.4573/2020, parties being Akhilesh Kumar  Mishra & anr Vs. State of CG,  decided on 4.11.2020, while considering identical issue, has protected similarly placed Guest Lecturers from being replaced by another set of Guest Teachers. He also placed reliance on order dated 27.02.2017 passed in WPS No.4406/2016 (Manju Gupta & others Vs. State of CG & ors)

Learned State counsel opposing submission of learned counsel for petitioner, would submit that appointment of petitioner as Guest Lecturer is for a particular academic session and after the academic session is over, appointment of petitioner automatically comes to an end. Hence, respondent No.3 has not erred in issuing advertisement for fresh appointment as Guest Lecturer for the next academic sessions i.e. 2023-24.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed along with writ petition.

In case of Manish Gupta & anr. Vs. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti & ors, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 485, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus:-

“12. A perusal of the advertisement dated 24th June, 2016 issued by the Principal, Government Kamla Raja Girls Post Graduate Autonomous College, Gwalior, which is at Annexure P2 of the Appeal Paper Book and the advertisement dated 2nd July, 2016 issued by the Principal, SMS Government Model Science College, Gwalior, M.P., which is at Annexure P-3 of the Appeal Paper Book, would show that the appointments were to be made after the candidates had gone through due selection procedure. Though Shri Nataraj, learned ASG has strenuously urged that the appointments of the appellants were as guest lecturers and not as ad hoc employees, from the nature of the advertisements, it could clearly be seen that the appellants were appointed on ad hoc basis. It is a settled principle of law that an ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee and he can be replaced only by another candidate who is regularly appointed by following a regular procedure prescribed. Reliance in this respect can be placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Rattan Lal and ors Vs. State of Haryana and others, (1985) 4 SCC 43 and on the order of this Court in the case of Hargurpratap Singh v. State of Punjab, (2007) 13 SCC 292.”

In case of Manju Gupta (supra) the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held thus:-

“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.

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. 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.

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 byway of Guest Lecturers where there are no Guest Lecturers available.

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 dis-satisfactory. 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.

The Co-ordinate Single Bench of this Court in WPS 4573/2020 (supra) has held thus:-

“7.This Court, under the given circumstances, is inclined to accept the same analogy in the case of the petitioners also and accordingly it is ordered that unless there is any complaint received against the performance of the petitioners, the respondents are restrained from going in for any fresh recruitment of a Guest Teacher for the said subject under the respondent No.5- against which the petitioners were engaged.”

In case at hand, perusal of the appointment order of the petitioner would show that appointment of petitioner as 'Guest Lecturer' would be till posting/appointment of regular Lecturer or Assistant Professor. Learned State Counsel has also not been able to point out that service of petitioner was dis-satisfactory or there was any complaint against him.

In the above circumstances and keeping in mind above decisions, this Court is inclined to accept the same analogy in the case of the petitioner also and accordingly, it is ordered that unless there is any complaint received against the performance of petitioner, the respondents are restrained from going in for any fresh recruitment of Guest Teacher in respondent No.3 for the subject against which the petitioner was engaged. However, it is made clear that protection given to petitioner would only be to the extent of not being replaced by another set of Guest Lecturer. This would not preclude the State Government from filling up the post by way of regular appointment or by way of engaging Lecturer or Assistant Lecturer on contract in accordance with Rules, if any, framed by the State Government or Competent Authority.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stand disposed of.

Certified copy as per rules.