Maya Gupta vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Grievance of Petitioners is that since they were working as Guest Lecturers under Respondent No.3 College for the academic session 2020-21, the

Respondents should not be permitted to replace them by another set of contractual Guest Lecturers.

Contention of learned Counsel for Petitioners is that, Petitioners have undergone a due process of selection for being appointed as Guest Lecturers

and that their services also were satisfactory as there is no complaint whatsoever so far as their competency is concerned. Further contention 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 Respondent No.3 for the subject in which the Petitioner was taking classes.

Learned Counsel for Petitioners relies upon the judgment of this Court passed in the case of “Manju Gupta & others v. State of Chhattisgarh &

othersâ€, WPS No. 4406/2016, decided on 27.02.2017, whereby the similarly placed Guest Lecturers under the Director (Industrial Training Institute)

have been granted protection from being replaced by another set of Guest

Learned Counsel for State opposing the Writ 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.

Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of record, what is admitted is that the appointments so made are 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 Petitioners at any point of time was found to be unsatisfactory. In the

case of “Manju Guptaâ€​ (supra), this Court in paragraphs No. 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.

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 by way 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 dissatisfactory. 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.â€​

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

Guest Lecturer under Respondent No.3 College for the subject against which the Petitioners were engaged.

It is however made clear that the said protection to Petitioners would be only to the extent of not being replaced by another set of Guest Lecturers.

This would not preclude the State Government from going in for filling up of the post by way of a regular appointment or by way of engaging

contractual teachers under the rules for contractual employment.

So far as the claim of remuneration as per the guidelines of the UGC is concerned, it would be open for Petitioners to make a suitable

representation in this regard before Respondent No.1 who in turn would take a policy decision so far as the remuneration part payable to the Guest

Lecturers is concerned, keeping in view of the guidelines that have been laid down by the UGC.

With the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.