Allowed

Rajkumari Gajpal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC16 Mar 2021WPS/1687/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges a college advertisement inviting fresh Guest Lecturers. The High Court relied on precedent to hold that existing Guest Lecturers have a legitimate expectation of continuation unless their services are found unsatisfactory. The petition was allowed to restrain the State from fresh recruitment for filled posts, though regularization remains open.

What did the court decide?

The impugned advertisement dated 23.02.2021 is not to be given effect to; respondents are restrained from fresh recruitment for posts held by petitioners.

Rajkumari Gajpal Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Education and Admissions | Chhattisgarh HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 1687 of 2021

¶5

Rajkumari Gajpal D/o Shri Kumarchand Gajpal Aged About 41 Years Guest Faculty (Subject Sociology) Govt. College Arjunda Balod, Chhattisgarh, R/o Village Sikosa Tehsil Gundardehi, District Balod, C.G. Pin 491222.

¶6

Dr. Pokhraj Sharma S/o Shri Ramavtar Sharma Aged About 45 Years Guest Faculty (Chemistry). Govt. Sky College Gundardehi Balod, Cg, R/o Shanta Cottage Kasaridih Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶7

---- Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, Indiravati Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶10

Commissioner Higher Education Block C - 3, 2nd And 3rd Floor, Indiravati Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶11

Principal Govt. Sky College Gundardehi Balod Chhattisgarh.

¶12

Principal Govt. College Arjunda, Balod Chhattisgarh.

¶13

---- Respondents

¶14

For Petitioners	:	Mr. Chandradeep Prasad, Advocate
		along with Mr. Aman Upadhyay, Advocate
For State	:	Mr. Amit Buxy, Panel Lawyer
		Ms. Akanksha Jain, Dy. G.A.

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board

¶16

16/03/2021

¶17

The challenge in the present writ petition is to the advertisement dated 23.02.2021 issued by the respondent No.3 for engagement of Guest Lecturers.

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

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 respondents should not be permitted to go in for a fresh recruitment process as per the impugned advertisement for filling up of the posts of Guest Lecturers under the respondent no.3 for the subject in which the petitioners were taking classes.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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/2. 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.

¶24

Further from the records, it also does not appear that the performance of the petitioners, at any point of time, was found to be

¶25

¶26

unsatisfactory. In the case of “ Manju Gupta ” (supra), this Court in paragraphs No. 8 to 11 has held as under:-

¶27

“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.

¶28

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 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.

¶29

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.

¶30

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.”

¶31

This Court, under the given circumstances, is inclined to accept the

¶32

same analogy in the case of the petitioners also. Accordingly, it is

¶33

¶34

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.

¶35

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.

¶36

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, as regards the remuneration part payable to the Guest Lecturers, keeping in view of the guidelines, that have been laid down by the UGC.

¶37

In view of the same, the impugned advertisement dated 23.02.2021 shall not be given effect to and the present writ petition stands allowed to that extent.

¶38

Sd/(P. Sam Koshy) Judge

¶39

Ved

Rajkumari Gajpal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajkumari Gajpal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.G. State Power Gen.Com.Ltd.Korba Vs Vishal Das and Ors.

Vibhuraj Singh Kshtri Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Pratap Singh Kurrey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ku. Priyanka Dwivedi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Parmeshwar Lal Dhruw Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vineeta Trivedi Vs State of Chhattisgarh