Trayendra Kumar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Judgment

3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (Chhattigarh)., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh Additional Director, Directorate Of Higher Education Department Alat Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh). Principal, Government Naveen College Nawagaon Sector-28, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh W.P.(S). No. 3945 of 2022 ---- Respondents Sant Kumar Sahu S/o. Bhaiya Lal Sahu Aged About 30 Years Working As Guest Faculty (Hindi) At Govt. Navin Girls College, Surajpur District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. Versus ---- Petitioner

3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (Chhattigarh)., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh Additional Director, Directorate Of Higher Education Department Alat Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh). Principal Govt. Navin Girls College, Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. W.P.(S). No. 3950 of 2022 ---- Respondents Savita Paikra D/o Brij Mohan Paikra Aged About 22 Years Working As Guest Faculty (Zoology) At Government Navin Girls College, Surajpur , District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh Versus ---- Petitioner

2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (Chhattigarh)., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh Director, Directorate Of Higher Education Department Alat Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 2

3. Principal Government Navin Girls College, Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh W.P.(S). No. 3951 of 2022 ---- Respondents Shivani Pandey D/o Sunil Kumar Pandey Aged About 28 Years Working As Guest Faculty (English) At Govt. Navin Girls College, Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. Versus ---- Petitioner

3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (Chhattigarh)., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh Director, Directorate Of Higher Education Department Alat Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh). Principal, Govt. Navin Girls College, Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioners

: Mr.Jeet Ram Patel, Advocate and Mr. Nishikant Sinha, Advocate For Respondents/State : Ms. Sunita Jai, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant Order On Board 16/06/2022

1. All these petitions are being heard and disposed off by this common order as there is common question is involved.

2. All these petitions have been filed praying for relief to allow the petitioners to perform the duties as Guest Lecturers in various educational institutions until the selection of regular lecturers/teachers.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respective petitioners, that the petitioners have given services as 3 Guest Faculty Lecturers in various places, since the past years. Before their appointment as Guest Faculty Lecturer, all the petitioners had cleared the selection process for such appointment. It is submitted that term of the appointment of the petitioners as Guest Lecturer has expired in April, 2022 and the petitioners have apprehension that the respondents authorities shall initiate process for appointment of fresh Guest Lecturers in places of the petitioners. It is submitted that in case of Meeta Dewangan Vs. State of C.G. & Ors, in W.P.(S) No. 1764 of 2022, decided on 15.03.2022, the similar question was involved, which has been decided in favour of the petitioner. Further the Supreme Court has held in case of State of Haryana Vs. Piara Singh and Ors., reported in (1992) 4 SCC 118, that an adhoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another adhoc or temporary employee, he must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee. The case of the petitioners is same. Hence, it is prayed that appropriate direction be issued to the respondents authorities to accommodate the petitioners as Guest Lecturers in the educational institutions, until the regular appointment is made.

4. Learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents opposes the petitions and the submissions made in this respect. It is submitted that the petitioners have filed these petitions only on the basis of apprehension that they may be replaced by some other newly appointed Guest Lecturer, therefore, no cause of action has arisen till date. The petitions filed are premature and are fit to be rejected. Relying on the order of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6144 of 2021 between Roopa Devi Kurrey & Ors. 4 Vs. State of C.G. & Anr. decided on 12.11.2021, it is submitted that the learned Single Judge has very clearly held that in the similar case, that no cause of action has arisen for filing the petition and further the learned Single Bench has referred the matter to be placed before larger Bench by framing question, as to whether in absence of cause of action, the petition as framed and instituted seeking the relief in the nature of issuance of writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could be held to be sustainable? It is submitted that until this question is decided by the larger Bench, the present petitions are not fit to be considered. Hence, all the petitions may be dismissed.

5. In reply, it is submitted by the learned counsels for the petitioners that in similar cases, several orders have been passed by the Coordinate Bench by this Court, subsequent to the passing of the order dated 12.11.2021 in W.P.(S) No. 6144 of 2021. Reference is made to the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 2710 of 2022 and bunch of other cases, on 21.04.2022, in W.P.(S) No. 3390 of 2022, passed on 10.05.2022 and in W.P.(S) No.3442 of 2022, passed on

11.05.2022. It is submitted that similar objection was raised by the respondents side, before the Coordinate Bench of this Court despite that these orders have been passed and appropriate directions have been issued.

6. It is further submitted that in recent development the State Government has issued an order dated 12.10.2021, directing the Commissioner, Directorate of Higher Education, that Guest Lecturers regarding whom there is direction of the High Court, the same should be followed and as there is direction with respect to 5 the Guest Lecturers, which are being followed and complied with by the State. Similar direction is required for present petitioners also. Hence, it is submitted that present petitions may also be disposed off in the same line.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

8. In case of Roopa Devi Kurre (Supra), the learned Single Bench has although held that no cause of action was present in that case on the basis of the facts present in that case, however, the question has been framed by the Single Bench that as to whether the petitioner under Article 226 can be entertained despite absence of cause of action or not.

9. In case of Aadi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam & Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Naidu, reported in AIR 2016 209, it was held by the Supreme Court in para-10, which is as follows :- “10. It is difficult for us to accept the contentions advanced on behalf of the respondents with regard to the maintainability of writ petitions on two counts. Firstly, it is difficult to appreciate as to why the petitioners should be non-suited at the threshold merely because the G.O. dated 23.05.2006 has not been given effect to by actual orders of the State Government. The institution of a writ proceeding need not await actual prejudice and adverse effect and consequence. An apprehension of such harm, if the same is well founded, can furnish a cause of action for moving the Court. The argument that the present writ petition is founded on a cause relating to appointment in a public office and hence not 6 entertainable as a public interest litigation would be too simplistic a solution to adopt to answer the issues that have been highlighted which concerns the religious faith and practice of a large number of citizens of the country and raises claims of century old traditions and usage having the force of law. The above is the second ground, namely, the gravity of the issues that arise, that impel us to make an attempt to answer the issues raised and arising in the writ petitions for determination on the merits thereof.”

10. In view of the observations of Supreme Court in case of Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam (Supra), this Court is of the view that such technical objection should not come on the way when there is question of right involved to be considered upon.

11. In W.P.(S) No. 2710 of 2022, W.P.(S) No. 3442 of 2022, W.P.(S) No. 3390 of 2022, the Coordinate Bench has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in case of Manju Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of C.G. W.P.(S) No. 4406 of 2016, decided on 27.02.2017. In paragraph 8 to 11 of the judgment of Manju Gupta’s case, it has been 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 7 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.

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. 8

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. 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.”

12. The judgment in case of State of Haryana & Ors. (Supra) and the judgment in case of Dr. Chanchal Goyal Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2003) 3 SCC 485 have been referred in the Manju Gupta judgment.

13. In another judgment of Supreme Court in case of Hargurpratap Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2007) 13 SCC 292, it has been again held that one set of adhoc appointees should not be replaced by another set of adhoc appointees and the direction is given that adhoc appointees be continued in service until the regular appointments are made.

14. In view of these judicial pronouncement, the case of the petitioners is also fit to be considered on the same line. Hence, all the petitions are disposed off. The respondents are restrained from going in for fresh recruitment of adhoc Guest Lecturers with respect to the places on which, the petitioners in all the cases have been giving services so far as guest lecturers in different faculties and the appointment of the petitioners be considered in the institutions in which the petitioners were previously appointed so far it is practicable. It is made clear that this order of restraint is only with 9 respect to the fresh appointment of adhoc Guest Lecturers. This order does not preclude the State Government for making regular appointments on the pay scale as prescribed on the post concerned.

15. The petitioners in all the cases have also prayed for relief of proper remuneration regarding which it is observed that it shall be open for the petitioners to make suitable representation, before the respondents authorities and the respondents authorities shall be obliged to take a policy decision with respect to remuneration, which is appropriate for payment to the Guest Lecturers keeping in view the guidelines that have been laid down by the University Grants Commission.

16. With these observations, all the petitions are disposed off. Sd/- (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge Balram