Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.08.04 18:58:33 +0530 2025:CGHC:37686 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2 of 2023 Sourabh Ghosh S/o Shri Shyamal Ghosh, Aged About 29 Years Working As Guest Lecturer (Civil), Government Polytechnic College, Deobhog Road, Darrapara Gariaband, District Gariaband, Chhattisgarh. versus ... Petitioner 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Skill Development Technical Education And Employment Department, Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director (Technical Education), Indrawati Bhavan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Principal Government Polytechnic College, Deobhog Road, Darrapara, Gariaband, District Gariaband, Chhattisgarh. (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondents For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
reliance on the decision of this Court in the matter of Pradeep Rai v. State of Chhattisgarh and others, WPS No. 8875/2022, decided on 16.12.2022, wherein this Court had elaborately discussed the rights of Guest Lecturers and the impermissibility of their arbitrary replacement. It is submitted that the facts of the present case are squarely covered by the said judgment, and the action of respondent No. 3 in the present case is similarly
Arguments
: Mr. Shrawan Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents-State : Ms. M. Asha, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge 31.07.2025 Order on Board 2 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ restraining the respondent No. 3 from replacing the petitioner by appointment of fresh Guest Lecturers. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may graciously further be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ ordering to respondent No. 3 for continuation of service of petitioner as a Guest Lecturer, as ordered by this Hon'ble High Court in WPS No.8875/2022 (Annexure P-7). 10.3 That any other relief or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, be also awarded to the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the case, are that the petitioner had completed his B.E. in Civil Engineering and subsequently passed M.Tech in Structural Engineering during the academic year 2018–19. He also held a valid GATE 2017 Score Card, and thus fulfilled all the eligibility criteria and norms prescribed by the University Grants Commission (UGC) for appointment to the post of Guest Lecturer. On the basis of his qualifications, the petitioner was appointed as a Guest Lecturer (Civil Engineering) by respondent No. 3 on 07.09.2019, and served in that capacity without any complaint or adverse remark throughout his tenure. In the month of November 3 2022, respondent No. 3 had orally informed the petitioner that his services would not be continued after 31.12.2022, as the college intended to make fresh appointments. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had approached the Hon’ble Minister, State of Chhattisgarh, who issued a letter dated 26.11.2022 recommending the petitioner’s continuation. Despite the said recommendation, respondent No. 3 issued a fresh appointment order on 29.11.2022, excluding the name of the petitioner from the panel of Guest Lecturers. Subsequently, on 02.12.2022, respondent No. 1 issued a circular revising the remuneration of Guest Lecturers from Rs.21,000/- per month to a maximum of Rs.56,100/- per month, which was within the knowledge of respondent No. 3, but no written order of discontinuation had ever been served upon the petitioner, nor was any communication issued for his continuation. In absence of any adverse record and considering his eligibility, experience, and performance, the petitioner had a legitimate expectation of continuation. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner respectfully submits that the action of respondent No. 3 in discontinuing the petitioner from the post of Guest Lecturer (Civil Engineering), despite his continued satisfactory service and higher merit, is arbitrary and unfair. It is submitted that the petitioner had been duly appointed on 07.09.2019 in accordance with the eligibility criteria prescribed by the University Grants Commission (UGC), and had been rendering his services without any complaint. His qualifications, 4 including M.Tech in Structural Engineering, and GATE score, coupled with his longer teaching experience, place him on a higher pedestal than the newly appointed candidates. However, respondent No. 3, while issuing the fresh panel dated 29.11.2022, completely ignored the petitioner’s merit and experience, without assigning any reasons for his exclusion. It is further submitted that no written order of discontinuation was ever issued to the petitioner, depriving him of an opportunity to be heard, which amounts to a violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner had a legitimate expectation of continuation in service, particularly in view of his past performance and the recommendation made in his favour by the Hon’ble Minister, State of Chhattisgarh through letter dated 26.11.2022, which was also disregarded by respondent No. 3. Learned counsel placed
Decision
unsustainable in law. In view of the above, it is submitted that the non-inclusion of the petitioner’s name in the list of Guest Lecturers is not only procedurally arbitrary but also constitutionally impermissible, and therefore, the impugned action deserves to be 5 quashed. It is further prayed that appropriate directions be issued to reinstate the petitioner as Guest Lecturer (Civil Engineering), with all consequential benefits, including revised remuneration in accordance with the circular dated 02.12.2022. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the present writ petition is misconceived, devoid of merit, and liable to be dismissed, as the petitioner has failed to disclose the complete and correct facts before this Court. It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a Part-Time Lecturer, and not as a Guest Lecturer, vide appointment order dated 04.07.2022 issued by the Principal, Government Polytechnic College, Gariyaband, for a fixed academic period, only for the July–December 2022 semester. The appointment was purely temporary and tenure-based, governed strictly by the terms and conditions mentioned in the said order (Annexure R-1). Therefore, the petitioner had no vested or continuing right to remain on the post beyond the specified semester, and any claim for continuation is contrary to the express conditions of his appointment. It is further submitted that, anticipating the new academic session, the respondent institution issued a public advertisement and conducted a Walk-in-Interview process for the post of Part-Time Lecturers, including for the Civil Engineering branch, in accordance with official communication dated 10.11.2022, published in newspapers on 15.11.2022 (Annexure 6 R-2). The petitioner duly participated in the selection process conducted on 23.11.2022, and his name appeared at Serial No. 5 of the Attendance Sheet (Annexure R-3). Upon evaluation, the petitioner secured only 08 marks and was accordingly declared “Not Selected”, as reflected in the selection result dated 23.11.2022 (Annexure R-4). The final merit list included 08 other candidates in the Civil Engineering branch, who had obtained higher marks. Thus, it is submitted that the petitioner, having participated in a selection process and failed to qualify on merit, cannot now turn around and claim continuation on the basis of a prior time-bound appointment, which had lapsed by efflux of time. Learned counsel further submits that the writ petition was filed only on 01.01.2023, i.e., after the final selection list had been published and when it became clear that the petitioner had not been selected. The petitioner never challenged the recruitment advertisement nor sought any interim relief before participating in the process. As such, the petitioner’s conduct reflects an afterthought and an attempt to bypass the regular selection mechanism. She argued that it is a settled principle of law that a candidate who participates in a selection process with full knowledge of its terms and conditions and is unsuccessful, cannot later challenge the outcome or seek continuation based on prior appointments. Lastly, it is respectfully submitted that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands, and has suppressed material facts, particularly his participation and result 7 in the selection process. Therefore, he is not entitled to any discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition. 6. Upon careful consideration of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties and on meticulous perusal of the material placed on record, this Court is of the firm view that no enforceable legal right exists in favour of the petitioner to claim continuation in service as a Part-Time Lecturer beyond the tenure specifically mentioned in his appointment order. The appointment order dated 04.07.2022, issued by the Principal of Government Polytechnic College, Gariyaband, clearly stipulated that the petitioner’s engagement was purely temporary and restricted to one academic semester, i.e., from July 2022 to December 2022. 7. It is a settled principle of service jurisprudence that a candidate appointed for a fixed tenure cannot claim continuation or regularization merely on the basis of having served for a certain period, unless there exists a statutory or contractual right to that effect, which is conspicuously absent in the present case. 8. Furthermore, the record reflects that the respondent institution had already initiated a fresh selection process for appointment of Part- Time Lecturers by issuing a public notice dated 10.11.2022, wherein the petitioner voluntarily participated in the interview held 8 on 23.11.2022. Upon evaluation, the petitioner was awarded only 08 marks, placing him at serial No. 20 in the merit list, well below the cutoff, and he was rightly not selected. The final selection list published on the same day included 08 other candidates who had performed better and were selected on merit. Once the petitioner participated in the selection process with full knowledge and without raising any objection at that stage, he cannot now turn around and challenge the outcome or seek continuation based on his prior appointment. The conduct of the petitioner amounts to approbation and reprobation, which is legally impermissible. 9. It is a well-settled proposition that a candidate who takes a calculated chance by participating in a selection process cannot be allowed to challenge its result after being unsuccessful. It also appears that the present writ petition was filed only on 01.01.2023, after the final selection list was issued and only when it became evident that the petitioner had not been selected. The timing of the writ petition, coupled with the fact that the petitioner never challenged the recruitment notification or the process of selection, reflects lack of bona fides. Additionally, the petitioner has suppressed material facts relating to his participation in the interview and the outcome thereof, which further disentitles him from any equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9 10. In view of the above analysis and the legal position governing temporary and part-time appointments, this Court finds no merit in the present writ petition. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. It is, however, made clear that this order shall not preclude the petitioner from applying afresh for future recruitment or being considered in accordance with law, subject to his eligibility and comparative merit. Gopal / Yogesh Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge