Point of Law : 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.

ORDER :

1. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that since the petitioner was working as a Guest Lecturer under the respondent No.3 for the academic year 2021-22, the respondents should not be permitted to replace the petitioner by another set of contractual Guest Lecturers.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner has undergone a due process of selection for being appointed as a Guest Lecturer and that the services of the petitioner also was satisfactory as there is no complaint whatsoever, so far as the competency of the petitioner is concerned. It is further the contention of the petitioner that now that the academic session is over, the respondents should not be permitted to go in for a fresh recruitment process for filling up of the posts of Guest Lecturers under the respondent No.3 for the subject in which the petitioner was taking classes.

3. Counsel for the petitioner 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.

4. 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 petitioner has filed the writ petition only on apprehension and since there is no cause of action, the matter is premature and deserves to be rejected.

5. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of record, what is admitted is that the petitioner was appointed vide Annexure P/1. The order of appointment specifically had a clause mentioning that the appointment so made are till an alternative arrangement is made by way of regular recruitment/contractual/ transfer.

6. 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:-

“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.

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.

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 Indust