Disposed

Santosh Kumar Dewangan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC17 Oct 2024WPS/5359/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Guest Lecturer challenged fresh advertisement for Guest Lecturer posts, relying on Manish Gupta that ad-hoc employees cannot be replaced by similar ad-hoc employees. The court followed the coordinate Bench view upholding the UGC Regulation 2018-based 2024 policy and disposed of the petition on the same terms.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of in terms of order dated 03.09.2024 in WPS No.4034/2024, protecting petitioner from replacement by similarly qualified Guest Lecturers.

Santosh Kumar Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Education and Admissions | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 4

2024:CGHC:41165

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 5359 of 202 4

¶6

Santosh Kumar Dewangan S/o Khedlal Dewangan, Aged About 46 Years Occupation Guest Faculty (Chemistry), At Madanlal Sahu Government College, Aarmarikala, District-Balod (C.G.)

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

Additional Director, Directorate Of Higher Education Department, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

Principal, Madanlal Sahu Government College, Aarmarikala, District- Balod (C.G.)

¶12

	... Respondents
For Petitioner	: Ms. Zainab Mustafa Vanak, Advocate
For Respondents/ State	: Mr. Rishabh Bisen, Panel Lawyer

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶14

ORDER ON BOARD

¶15

18/10/2024

¶16

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 04.09.2024, the default as pointed out by the Registry has been cured, however, on little delay. Today, office has listed this case on default of not filing delay application for removing

¶17

PAWAN KUMAR the default. Therefore, as the delay has already been cured, petitioner JHA

¶18

Digitally signed by PAWANKUMAR JHA may be exempted from filing application of condonation of delay.

¶19

2 / 4

¶20

On due consideration of the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner, prayer made is allowed and the petitioner is exempted from filing application for condonation of delay.

¶21

Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-

¶22

“10.1. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned advertisement dated 16.07.2024 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Principal, Madanlal Sahu Government College, Aarmarikala, District Balod, C.G.

¶23

10.2 Hon’ble court may kindly be directed the respondent State to allow the petitioner to perform the duties ad Guest Lecturer at Madanlal Sahu Government College, Aarmarikala, District Balod till the regular appointment.

¶24

10.3 The Hon’ble Court may kindly grant any other writ/writs, order/ orders, relief/ reliefs in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon’ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner. ”

¶25

4 Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is appointed as Guest Lecturer in the respondent No.3 for the academic sessions 2017-18 up to last academic session 2023-24. After conclusion of academic session, respondent-College issued fresh advertisement inviting applications for appointment on various posts of Guest Lecturers including the post on which petitioner was engaged as Guest Lecturer. She submits that by now it is well settled that an ad-hoc or temporary or contractual employee cannot be replaced by another ad-hoc or temporary employee and he must be replaced by regularly appointed Lecturers. This issue has earlier come up for consideration before this Court and taking into consideration decision in case

¶26

of Manish Gupta & another vs. Presidents, Jan Bhagidari Samiti & ors , 2022 (6) SCALE 780, this Court has set aside the advertisement and protected the services of Guest Lecturers by observing that they cannot be replaced by another set of Guest Lecturers. The policy framed by State Government in the year 2014 for appointment of Guest Lecturers is identical

¶27

3 / 4

¶28

to the policy framed in the year 2024 and therefore issuance of fresh advertisement for appointment of Guest Lecturer is per se illegal and bad in law.

¶29

5 Learned State counsel opposing submission of learned counsel for petitioner, would submit that after issuance of guidelines for appointment of Guest Lecturer in the year 2014, the University Grant Commission has laid down the regulations on minimum qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018 (for short ‘the Regulation of 2018’). State Government has framed policy in the year 2024 in accordance with the Regulation of 2018. Advertisement under challenge is issued strictly in accordance with the Regulation of 2018 as also Policy framed by the State Government in the year 2024. Hence, there is no merit in this writ petition. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the order dated 03.09.2024 passed by the coordinate Bench in batch of writ petitions, lead case being WPS No.4034/2024 (Gayatri Sharma vs. State of CG and others).

¶30

6 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available in record of writ petition.

¶31

7 Grievance of petitioner is with respect of issuance of fresh advertisement for appointment of Guest Lecturers. Submission of learned counsel for petitioner is only on the basis of decision in the case of Manish Gupta (supra) stating that Guest Lecturers cannot be replaced by similar set of Guest Lecturers, which in the opinion of this Court is not sustainable as subsequently the UGC has fixed minimum qualification for appointment on the post of Lecturers in the colleges. The State Government has issued policy in the year 2024 to the effect that candidate having minimum qualification, as prescribed in the Regulation of 2018 issued by the UGC, should be appointed as Lecturers. It is also mentioned in the policy that in

¶32

4 / 4

¶33

case no candidate is found having minimum qualification prescribed in the Regulation of 2018 of the UGC, then others can be considered.

¶34

8 Similar issue came up for consideration in a batch of writ petitions, lead case being WPS No.4034/2024 (Gayatri Sharma vs. State of CG and others) before the Coordinate Bench and relying on the decision of another Coordinate Bench in WPS No.5232/2023 (Shrishti Lakra vs. State of CG and others) wherein it was held that a comprehensive policy has been framed by the State Government with regard to engagement of Guest Lecturers which cannot be said to be prejudicial to any manner to the petitioners, disposed of said writ petitions vide order dated 03.09.2024 observing that the State Government would be at liberty to appoint the Guest Lecturers strictly in accordance with minimum qualification as prescribed in the regulation of the University Grant Commission i.e. Regulation on minimum qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018, as also in the Policy of 2024 framed by the State Government in this regard. However it is made made clear that Guest Lecturers shall not be replaced by similar set of Guest Lecturer having similar qualification.

¶35

9 Learned counsel for petitioner could not be able to persuade this Court to take a view different from the one taken by coordinate Bench of this Court. Hence, I am in agreement with the view taken by coordinate Bench in above referred cases. Being so, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of order dated 03.09.2024 passed in WPS No.4034/2024. However it is also made clear that the petitioner shall not be replaced by similar set of Guest Lecturer having similar qualification as the petitioner is having.

¶36

Certified copy as per rules.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

(Parth Prateem Sahu)

¶39

pwn

Santosh Kumar Dewangan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar Dewangan 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

Ku. Onkar Thawait Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kirtan Kumar Rathore Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manikram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Aakeshwar Yadav @ Aakheshwar Yadav @ Anuj Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

V. v. Malaiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Supriya Bhagat Vs State of Chhattisgarh