Manoj Kumar vs The State Of Bihar & Ors.

Heard the parties.

Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner seeks a direction upon the respondent University to extend the services of the petitioner as a Guest Teacher in the subject of Psychology in S.B.A.N. College, Darhetta, Lari and ensure the payment of honorarium.

It is submitted that the petitioner was duly appointed as a Guest Teacher in the subject of Psychology in respondent University, after following the procedure of selection for 11 months in S.B.A.N. College vide Memo No. 09/GIA/25 dated 05.03.2025. During the period of his service, the same was found to be satisfactory. Notwithstanding the aforesaid fact, it is the contention of learned advocate for the petitioner that his service has not been extended, whereas services of the junior to the petitioner have been extended.

The identical issue has come up for consideration in C.W.J.C. No. 15566 of 2024, wherein the Court, noticing the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Gupta vs. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti, AIR OnLine 2022 SC 576 and Hargurpratap Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2007) 13 SCC 292, has been pleased to opine that the services of the petitioner shall not be dispensed with and be allowed to continue to work till the joining of regular selected candidates.

Learned Advocate for Magadh University, Mr. Shriram Krishna submitted that since the petitioner has not brought on record the engagement/appointment letter which carries the terms and conditions of the employment, thus he seeks a short adjournment to apprise this Court with regard to the present position. However, refuting the contention, he further submitted that the service of a contractual or Guest Teacher is to be continued after considering the terms and conditions of the service, subject to his satisfactory service. Moreover, the contention of the petitioner is required to be considered by the competent authority, for which the petitioner has already filed representations.

Learned Advocate for the State also reiterates the aforesaid submission.

Having considered the nature of the grievance as also the fact that the petitioner has brought the entire facts before the Registrar of the University, who is competent to look into the matter, this Court directs the petitioner to file a fresh representation along with a copy of this order and the documents/decisions upon which he is placing reliance, preferably within a period of two weeks from today. In case such a representation is filed, the same shall be considered and disposed of by a speaking order within a further period of six weeks, in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid direction and observation, the writ petition stands disposed.