The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.12250 of 2022 Siba Prasanna Pathy …. Petitioner Mr. S.P. Nath, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha and Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mrs. Suman Pattnaik, AGA CORAM: Mr. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI Order No. 2. ORDER 31.05.2022 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties. 3. The petitioner has filed the present writ application challenging the inaction of the Opposite parties, more particularly the Opposite Party no.3 (Registrar, Khallikote Unitary University, Berhampur) in issuing the impugned advertisement dated 30.03.2022 for selection to the post of Guest Faculty and further challenges the order of removal dated 30.04.2022. 4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the substratum of the matter presented before this Court is that the petitioner having the requisite qualification was appointed as Guest Faculty in PG Department of History on 01.08.2017 and he continued against the said post till 30.04.2022. However, all of a sudden, the Opp. Party No.3 issued an advertisement on 30.04.2022 for selection of Guest Faculty in various // 2 // disciplines including the discipline of History. After issuance of such advertisement, the petitioner along with other Guest Faculties who are working under the Opp. party No.3 made objections that they had the requisite qualification as laid down in the advertisement and there is no purpose/ object of issuing another advertisement. The Opp. Party No.3 further issued a notice on 30.04.2022 wherein the Heads of the Department were requested to inform their respective Guest Faculties over phone not to
Legal Reasoning
attend the duties w.e.f. 01.05.2022. Aggrieved by the said orders, the aforesaid case has been filed by the petitioner. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr S.P. Nath, submits that the action of the Opp. Parties in replacing one set of Guest Faculty with another set of Guest Faculty is illegal, arbitrary and is contrary to the well-settled position of law. Moreover, while disengaging the service of the petitioner principle of natural justice has not been followed and therefore, the order of dismissal is bad in the eye of law. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further relied on the case of Manish Gupta and Ors. vs. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti and Ors1 wherein it has been clearly held that Guest Lecturer cannot be replaced with another set of Guest Lecturer and further held that Guest Lecturers would be allowed to continue till regularly selected
Decision
1 Civil Appeal Nos.3084-3088 of 2022 disposed of 21.04.2022 Page 2 of 8 // 3 // candidates are appointed. He has contended that the said judgment is squarely applicable to the case of the present petitioner and therefore, the impugned advertisement is liable to be set aside. 7. Mrs. Suman Pattnaik, Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the petitioner does not have any vested right to continue in the said post. She relied on the decision of Director, Institute of Management Development, U.P. Vs. Pushpa Srivastava (Smt.)2, wherein the Apex Court held that since the appointment was purely on contractual and ad hoc basis on consolidated pay for a fixed period and terminable without notice, when the appointment came to an end by efflux of time, the appointee had no right to continue in the post and to claim regularization in service in the absence of any rule providing for regularization after the period of service. A limited relief of directing that the appointee be permitted on sympathetic consideration to be continued in service till the end of the concerned calendar year was issued. This Court noticed that when the appointment was purely on ad hoc and contractual basis for a limited period, on the expiry of the period, the right to remain in the post came to an end. This Court stated that the view they were taking was the only view possible and set aside the judgment of the High Court which had given relief to the appointee. 21992 (3) SCR 712 Page 3 of 8 // 4 // 8. Similarly, Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State Of Karnataka vs Umadevi3 held that: to “23. In Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. Vs. Anil Kumar Mishra and Others4, a three judge bench of this Court held that ad hoc appointees/temporary employees engaged on ad hoc basis and paid on piece- rate basis for certain clerical work and discontinued on completion of their task, reinstatement or were not entitled regularization of their services even if their working period ranged from one to two years. This decision indicates that if the engagement was made in a particular work or in connection with particular project, on completion of that work or of that project, those who were temporarily engaged or employed in that work or project could not claim any right to continue in service and the High Court cannot direct that they be continued or absorbed elsewhere.” She further submits that a Guest Lecturer is like a temporary appointee, and hence he has no right to the post vide State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kaushal Kishore Shukla5, Triveni Shankar Saxena v. State of U.P6. 9. She further submits that there is no rule of law that a temporary appointee has a right to continue till a regularly selected candidate is available. If a regular selection does not take place for ten years, can the petitioner continue for 10 years, in that case the sanctity of appointment of guest faculty shall be destroyed. This is not the correct legal position, but