Goutam Bhaduri, J
1. Heard.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the issue involved in this case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in
WPS No.7301 of 2019 decided on 11.09.2019 and the same order may also be passed in this petition.
3. Not opposed by the State counsel.
4. In view of the factual scenario, the order passed by this Court in WPS No.7301 of 2019 shall also govern the case of this petitioner. The order
passed in WPS No.7301 of 2019 is reproduced hereunder:-
1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the advertisement Annexure P/1 dated 03.09.019 issued by the respondent No.3 for engagement of
Guest Lecturers.
2. The averments of the petitioners is that all the petitioners before this Court were working as Guest Lecturers in the previous academic session i.e.
for the year 2018-19 and the academic session came to an end in the month of February-March, 2019. It is the further contention of the petitioner is
that the petitioners services have not been discontinued on account of any unsatisfactory work or for any misconduct so committed by the any of the
petitioners.
3.The grievance of the petitioners in the present writ petition is that since the petitioners were working as Guest Lecturer under the respondent No.3
for the academic year 2018-19 and academic sessions has come to an end in February-March, 2019 the respondents should not be permitted to
replace the petitioners by another set of contractual Guest Lecturers.
4. The contention of the petitioners is that the petitioners have undergone a due process of selection for being appointed as a Guest Lecturer and that
the services of the petitioners also were satisfactory as there is no complaint whatsoever, so far as the competency of the petitioners is concerned. It
is further the contention of the petitioners 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 for the respective subject, in which the petitioners were
taking classes.
5. Counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of this Court passed in the case of ""Manju Gupta & others v. State of Chhattisgarh & others
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 Lecturers.
6. The State counsel opposing the petition submits that it is a case where no cause of action has till date arisen, in as much as the petitioners have filed
the writ petition only on apprehension and since there is no cause of action, the matter is premature and deserves to be rejected.
7.Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of record, what is admitted, is that the petitioners were appointed vide Annexure
P/1. The order of appointment specifically had a clause mentioning that the appointments so made are till an alternative arrangement is made by way
of recruitment through regular/ contractual/ transfer.
8. 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 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.
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 the Petitioners, they were made to undertake that their appointment would be till
the posts are filled up byregular/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.
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 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.
9. This Court, under the given circumstances, is inclined to accept the same analogy in the case of the petitioners also and accordingly it is ordered
that unless there is any complaint received against the performance of the petitioners, the respondents are restrained from going in for any fresh
recruitment of a Guest Lecturer for the respective subject under the respondent No.3-college, against which the petitioners were engaged.
10. It is however made clear that the protection to the 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.
11.So far as the claim of remuneration as per the guidelines of the UGC is concerned, it would be open for the petitioners to make a suitable
representation before the respondent No.1 in this regard, who in turn would take a policy decision, so far as the remuneration part payable to the
Guest Lecturers, keeping in view of the guidelines, that have been laid down by the UGC.
12. In view of the same the impugned advertisement Annexure P/1 dated 03.09.2019 shall not be given effect to and the present writ petition stands
allowed to that extent.
5. It is ordered accordingly. The ratio laid down in the case supra shall also govern the cause of lis in this case also and will have the same effect and
operation.
6. With such observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.
