Bajrang Dewangan vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Heard.

The grievance raised in this writ petition is that the petitioner was appointed as Guest Lecturer (Biotechnology) with respondent No.3 for the academic session 2021­22. During the said period, there was no complaint of any nature against the petitioner and the petitioner also fulfills all eligibility criteria and norms fixed by UGC for appointment of Guest Lecturer.

Mr.Nishikant Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that in this academic session even after starting of the academic session in the month of April, 2022, the petitioner is not noticed for continuing on the post of Guest Lecturer (Biotechnology) and therefore, the petitioner apprehending that respondent No.3 may issue fresh advertisement for recruitment of new Guest Lecturer on the subject Biotechnology and thereby will replace the petitioner by another Guest Lecturer, which is not permissible in law. In support of his contention, he placed reliance of decision of this Court in the matter of Manju Gupta & others v. State of Chhattisgarh & others WPS No.4406/2016, decided on 27.02.2017. He would further submit that other two Guest Lecturers, who were appointed by respondent No.3, have approached this Court raising similar grievance in WPS No.5796 of 2022 (Arti Bhagat and another v. State of Chhattisgarh), decided on 13.9.2022, in which their claim was considered and restrained respondent No.3 from engaging another Guest Lecturer of the said subject by replacing the petitioners therein. He would also submit that he is only making prayer at this stage that respondent No.3 be restrained from replacing the petitioner by engaging other Guest Lecturer on the subject Biotechnology.

On the other hand, Mr.Amrito Das, learned counsel for respondent No.3, would submit that the writ petition is pre­mature. As per the pleadings made in the writ petition, respondent No.3 is required to issue fresh advertisement on each academic session and it is not the case of the petitioner that any advertisement has been issued by respondent No.3 as of now. However, he do not dispute the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner based on Annexure P­2 that other two Guest Lecturers have approached this Court by filing writ petition and some orders have been passed in their favour.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

The limited grievance raised by the petitioner in this writ petition is that the petitioner is not being engaged by respondent No.3 passing an order for giving lectures by the petitioner as Guest Lecturer (Biotechnology) till date and he is apprehending that respondent No.3 may replace the petitioner by another set of Guest Lecturer.

This Court in the matter of Manju Gupta (supra) 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.

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 Lectures. On the practical aspect also the fact that the Petitioners are discharging the duties of Guest Lecturers for last more than 1­2 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.

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 P­1) 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 are lying vacant by way of Guest Lecturers where there are no Guest Lecturers available.

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 dis­satisfactory. 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.”

The petitioner has also filed an order passed in Arti Bhagat (supra), wherein two other Guest Lecturers in the faculty of Pharmacy and Environmental Science have filed the writ petition raising similar grievance and in that writ petition, co­ordinate Bench of this Court has restrained respondent No.3 from replacing those petitioners by another set of Guest Lecturers.

Considering entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, respondent No.3 is restrained from engaging another set of Guest Lecturer in the faculty of Biotechnology if the petitioner fulfills all eligibility criteria and norms fixed by UGC and there is no complaint against him of any nature. However, this order will not preclude respondent No.3 to make regular appointments on the post of Assistant Professor (Biotechnology).

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. No cost(s).