Back
2022 Supreme(MP) 56
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Ravi Malimath, CJ, and Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.
Pradeep Kumar Yadav & Others v. The State of M.P. & Others
Writ Petitions No. 6159 of 2022, 6609 of 2022, 6921 of 2022, 7682 of 2022, 7949 of 2022, 7950 of 2022, 8105 of 2022, 8768 of 2022, 8784 of 2022, 8691 of 2022 and 8694 of 2022 (Jabalpur); Decided on 26.4.2022
Anoop Nair, Shyam Yadav, R. P. Mishra, Ajay Kumar Mimrot, Pramendra Singh Thakur, M. K. Tripathi and for respective petitioners; Bramhadatt Singh, Government Advocate for respondents/State; Ashok Kumar Chourasiya for respondent/AICTE.
Headnote:
Civil Services -- guest faculty -- not in permanent employment
-- appointed for 11 months -- discontinued thereafter -- subsequently have to once again apply -- have to undergo fitness test every year
-- held -- initial appointment of guest faculty already made based on eligibility criteria prescribed by AICTE -- therefore, once found fit for employment, no necessity for petitioners to go through same documentation every time fresh appointment has to be made -- one-time test of eligibility would satisfy interest of State -- right of State is always retained to extent of removing teachers found unfit to teach -- therefore, clause in agreement entitling them to discontinue for reasons of incompetence cannot be interfered with by this Court -- no proposal by Government for regular appointment -- just and necessary that petitioners continue as guest faculty until regular appointments are made -- terms and conditions applicable to guest faculty will continue to remain unaffected -- in case there are few or no students in particular stream, State entitled not to continue guest faculty for that particular stream for that particular college -- if there are more number of students in particular stream or in particular college and more guest faculty teachers are required, State at liberty to call for fresh appointment for said purpose. [Paras 6 to 9
flfoy lsok && vfrfFk f'k{kd && LFkk;h fu;kstu esa ugha && 11 ekl ds fy, fu;qDr && rRi'pkr~ gVk fn, tkrs gSa && ckn esa fQj ls vkosnu djuk gksrk gS && izR;sd o"kZ mi;qDrrk ijh{kk nsuh gksrh gS && vfHkfu/kkZfjr && vfrfFk f'k{kd dh vkjafHkd fu;qfDr igys gh ,vkblhVhbZ }kjk fofgr ik=rk ekunaMksa ds vk/kkj ij dh tkrh gS && blfy,] ,d ckj fu;kstu ds fy, mi;qDr ik, tkus ij] u, fljs ls fu;qfDr fd, tkus ij ;kphx.k dks izR;sd ckj mlh izys[khdj.k dks iwjk djuk vko';d ugha && ,d ckj ik=rk dh ijh{kk ls gh jkT; ds fgr dh rqf"V gks tk,xh && f'k{k.k ds fy, vuqi;qDr ik, x, f'k{kdksa dks gVkus dh lhek rd jkT; dk vf/kdkj lnSo cuk jgrk gS && vr%] v{kerk ds dkj.kksa ls gVkus ds fy, mUgsa gdnkj cukus ds djkj ds [kaM esa bl U;k;ky; }kjk gLr{ksi ugha fd;k tk ldrk && fu;fer fu;qfDr ds fy, ljdkj dk dksbZ izLrko ugha && U;k;ksfpr rFkk vko';d fd fu;fer fu;qfDr;k¡ fd, tkus rd ;kphx.k vfrfFk f'k{kd ds :i esa dk;Zjr jgsa && vfrfFk f'k{kdksa dks ykxw fuca/ku rFkk 'krs± izHkkfor cuh jgasxh && fdlh fof'k"V fo"k; esa de ;k fcYdqy Hkh fo|kFkhZ ugha gksa rks jkT; ml fof'k"V egkfo|ky; ds ml fof'k"V fo"k; ds fy, vfrfFk f'k{kd ugha j[kus dk gdnkj && ;fn fdlh fof'k"V fo"k; ;k fdlh fof'k"V egkfo|ky; esa vf/kd la[;k esa fo|kFkhZ gSa rFkk vf/kd vfrfFk f'k{kdksa dh vko';drk gS rks jkT; mDr iz;kstukFkZ u, fljs ls fu;qfDr;k¡ djus dks Lora=A ¼iSjk 6 ls 9
ORDER
1. Since the subject matter involved in all these writ petitions is almost similar, they are taken up for consideration together.
2. The writ petitioners are all Guest Faculty Teachers in Engineering and Polytechnic Colleges. They have all been engaged as Lecturers/Professors to teach the students in the concerned colleges. They are not in permanent employment. They are appointed as Guest Faculty Teachers for a period of 11 months, discontinued thereafter and subsequently have to once again apply to be appointed as a Guest Faculty. They are paid on an hourly basis. They are given approximately 17 hours of teaching per week. Various other conditions exist in the Directives dated 27.1.2022. Their grievance is that they have been appointed continuously only for 11 months period and after which their employment becomes doubtful. They are also aggrieved by the clause in the directives that they have to undergo a fitness test every year. Various other clauses affect them.
3. However, the learned Government Advocate submits that the policy was earlier in existence to the same effect ever since the year 2004. There has been no grievance. That no case has been made out by any of the writ petitioners as to the discontinuance of any Guest Faculty. He further contends that the test of the Guest Faculty Teachers is only for the purposes to ensure that they conform to the eligibility as enunciated by the AICTE. That there is no qualitative test that is done every year in order to recruit them. However, he submits that in cases where the Guest Faculty Teachers are found to be unfit or for any other reason, disentitling them to teach in the classes, it is only those persons who are removed from service. For all other Guest Faculties, it is only the eligibility that is seen.
4. Heard learned counsels.
5. Various interim orders were passed in these petitions. In some petitions, the interim order was to the effect that the petitioners should not be terminated from service and shall continue until and unless a fresh appointment is made. In certain other cases, an interim order was passed to the effect that until and unless regular appointment is made, till then the petitioners shall continue. However, since all these petitions are taken up for consideration together, we deem it just and appropriate that the petitioners receive an appropriate order which will cover the entire issue at large.
6. Primarily, we do not find any advantage with the Government for imposing these kind of conditions. Even otherwise, the learned Government Advocate submits that this is not a test in the sense as contended by the petitioners. It is only intended for ensuring that they conform to the eligibility as prescribed by the AICTE. So far as this is concerned, the initial appointment of the Guest Faculty has already been made based on the eligibility criteria as prescribed by the AICTE. Therefore, once they are found fit for employment, we do not find any necessity for the petitioners to go through the very same documentation every time a fresh appointment has to be made. A one time test of eligibility would appear to satisfy the interest of the State.
7. So far as removing the teachers who are found unfit to teach is concerned, the right of the State is always retained to that extent. A teacher who does not perform his duties properly, cannot be allowed to continue in service. Therefore, that clause in the agreement entitling them to discontinue in the Guest Faculty for reasons of incompetence cannot be interfered with by this Court.
7. Since the learned Government Advocate submits that at present there does not seem to be a proposal by the Government to go in for regular appointment, it is only just and necessary that the petitioners continue as Guest Faculty Teachers until and unless regular appointments are made. However, the terms and conditions as applicable to the Guest Faculty Teachers will continue to remain unaffected.
8. The further submission of the learned G
