Rama Pathak vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors

P. Sam Koshy, J

Grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that, since the petitioner was working as a Guest Lecturer under the respondent no.3-

College for the academic year 2018-19 and the academic session has come to an end in February, 2019, the respondents should not be permitted to

replace the petitioner by another set of contractual Guest Lecturers.

Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that, the petitioner has undergone a due process of selection for being appointed as a Guest Lecturer

and that the services of the petitioner also were satisfactory as there is no complaint whatsoever so far as the competency of the petitioner is

concerned. Further contention of the counsel for the petitioner 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-College for the subject in which the

petitioner was taking classes.

Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court passed in the case of ""Manju Gupta & others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others

decided on 27.2.2017 in Writ Petition (S) No. 4406 of 2016 whereby similarly placed Guest Lecturers under the Director (Industrial Training Institute)

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

The State Counsel opposing the petition submits that, it is a case where no cause of action has till date arisen inasmuch as the petitioner has filed

the writ petition only on apprehension and since there is no cause of action the matter is premature and deserves to be rejected.

Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of record, what is admitted is that the petitioner was appointed on the post of

Guest Lecturer in respondent no.3-College for the academic session 2018-19. The order of appointment specifically had a clause mentioning that the

appointment so made is till an alternative arrangement is made by way of recruitment through regular/contractual/transfer. Further, from the records it

also does not appear that the performance of the petitioner at any point of time was found to be unsatisfactory. In the case of ""Manju Gupta"" (supra),

this Court in paragraphs 8 to 11 has held as under :

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 dis-satisfactory. The qaushment 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.

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 the petitioner, the respondents are restrained from going in for any fresh recruitment of a

Guest Lecturer for the subject against which the petitioner was engaged under the respondent no.3-college.

It is however made clear that the protection to the petitioner 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 the petitioner to make a suitable

representation in this regard before respondent no.1-State Government 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.