Allowed

Smt. Shabnam Parveen v. the State of Chhattisgah

Chhattisgarh HC6 Dec 2022WPS/8632/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged the termination of the petitioner's appointment as a guest teacher. The court relied on precedent to hold that unless her performance was found unsatisfactory, she is entitled to protection from being replaced by fresh recruits while the sanctioned vacancies remain unregularized.

What did the court decide?

Respondents restrained from fresh recruitment of Guest Teachers against the petitioner until a representation regarding remuneration is decided.

Smt. Shabnam Parveen Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

Page 1 of 4

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 8632 of 2022

¶5

Smt. Shabnam Parveen, W/o Mohammad Arif, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Ward No. 5, Block- Farasgaon, District- Kondagaon (C.G.) And Guest Teacher (English), In Government Higher Secondary School, Barkai, Block-Makadi, District Kondagaon (C.G.)

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Chhattisgah, Through Principal Secretary, Department of School Education, Mantralay, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)

¶9

The Directorate of Public Instruction (D.P.I.) School Education Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Raipur, District- Raigarh (C.G.)

¶10

The Collector Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon (C.G.)

¶11

The District Education Officer (D.E.O.) Kondagaon, DistrictKondagaon (C.G.)

¶12

The Principal, Government Higher Secondary School, Barkai, Block- Makadi, District- Kondagaon (C.G.)

¶13

---- Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr. Aman Upadhyay, Advocate. For State : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Dy. Advocate General.

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

06.12.2022

¶18

The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that since the petitioner is working as a Guest Teacher (English) with respondent No. 5 for the academic session 2021-22, she be allowed to continue as Guest Teacher.

¶19

The brief facts reflected from the record is that the petitioner is working as Guest Teacher with respondent No. 5 since 2019 to 2021, but the State has issued order dated 16.03.2022 (Annexure P/4), wherein it has been decided where the guest teachers have been posted, the regular teacher through direct recruitment, promotion and transfer be not fill up. Despite this,

¶20

Page 2 of 4

¶21

she has not been allowed to work as guest teacher in view of certain directions issued by respondent No. 4 and attempts have been made to replace guest teacher who had previously worked as Vidya Mitaan. He would further submit that the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Manju Gupta & others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others¹ , has held that 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 petitioner was appointed on 18.09.2019 as per experience certificate Annexure P/5.

¶24

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:-

¶25

“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.

¶26

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

¶27

1 WPS No. 4406/2016 (decided on 27.02.2017)

¶28

Page 3 of 4

¶29

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.

¶30

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.

¶31

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 quashment 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.”

¶32

This Court, under the given circumstances, is inclined to accept the same analogy in the case of the petitioner also and accordingly it is ordered that unless there is any complaint received against the performance of the petitioner, the

¶33

Page 4 of 4

¶34

respondents are restrained from going in for any fresh recruitment of a Guest Teacher for the said subject under respondent No. 5 against which the petitioner was 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 Teacher. This would not preclude the State Government for filling up the post by way of a regular appointment or by way of engaging contractual teachers under the rules for contractual employment and for appointment on the post of teachers on contractual basis, who have requisite qualification for appointment as teacher in the government school as per the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.

¶36

So far as the claim of remuneration as per the guidelines is concerned, it would be open for the petitioner to make a suitable representation before the respondent authorities in this regard, who in turn would take a policy decision, so far as the remuneration part payable to the Guest Teacher, keeping in view of the guidelines.

¶37

With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

¶40

Arun

Smt. Shabnam Parveen v. the State of Chhattisgah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shabnam Parveen v. the State of Chhattisgah

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

Shyam Sunder Dubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gaurav Kiran Vs State of Chhattisgarh

South Eastern Coalfields Limited Vs Bharat Kumar

Rajeev Bajpai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Veerendra Kumar Shrivastava Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Samprabha Mukti Vs the State of Chhattisgarh