Back
2023 Supreme(MP) 155
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Ravi Malimath, CJ, and Vishal Mishra, JJ.
Aarti Dayma v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Writ Petition No. 23659 of 2022 (Jabalpur);
Decided on 1.4.2023
Anshul Tiwari for petitioner; Bharat Singh, Additional
Advocate General for respondent No. 1/State.
Headnote:
Education -- guest faculty -- contractual employee -- can be replaced by a regular teacher/employee -- cannot be replaced by another guest faculty -- employer has right to discontinue her services if there is no requirement and subject to availability of students or if subject is taught by regular faculty -- contract appointee does not have any indefeasible right to ask for continuation of contract period -- in absence of averment with respect to replacement by another set of contractual employees, no relief can be extended to petitioner. (2008) 8 SCC 92 followed. Writ Appeal No. 617 of 2015 decided on 18.3.2016 relied on. Writ Petition No. 6159 of 2022 decided on 26.4.2022 and 2019 (1) MPLJ 643 distinguished.
[Paras 5, 10 & 11
f'k{kk && vfrfFk f'k{kd && lafonk deZpkjh && fu;fer f'k{kd@deZpkjh }kjk izfrLFkkfir fd;k tk ldrk gS && fdlh vU; vfrfFk f'k{kd }kjk izfrLFkkfir ugha fd;k tk ldrk && vko';drk ugha gks rFkk fo|kfFkZ;ksa dh miyC/krk ds vè;;èkhu vFkok ;fn og fo"k; fu;fer f'k{kd }kjk iढ+k;k tk jgk gks rks fu;kstd dks mldh lsok lekIr djus dk vf/kdkj gS && lafonk }kjk fu;qDr dks lafonk vof/k fujarj tkjh j[ks tkus dh ek¡x djus dk dksbZ vts; vf/kdkj ugha && lafonk deZpkfj;ksa ds fdlh vU; leqPp; }kjk izfrLFkkfir fd, tkus ds izdFku ds vHkko esa ;kph dks dksbZ Qk;nk ugha fn;k tk ldrkA ¼2008½8 ,l lh 92 vuqlfjrA fjV vihy Ø- 617 lu~ 2015 fu.khZr fnukad 18-3-2016 voyafcrA fjV ;kfpdk Ø- 6159 lu~ 2022 fu.khZr fnukad 26-4-2022 rFkk 2019 ¼1½ ,e ih ,y ts 643 izHksfnrA ¼iSjk 5] 10 ,oa 11
ORDER
1. This petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs :
" (i) To call for the relevant records of the case from respondents.
(ii) To quash the impugned order dated 10.10.2020 (Annexure P-6) issued by respondent No. 3 by a writ of Certiorari for any other appropriate writ direction or order.
(iii) To command the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for continue on the post of guest faculty in Home Science on the basis of his positive merits.
(iv) Allowed this petition with costs.
(v) Pass such other orders as may be deemed appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case to grant relief to the petitioner. "
2. It is the case of the petitioner that she was working in the respondent's department as Guest Faculty having a long experience. It is submitted that she was working since last more than 8 years as Guest Faculty with utmost honesty and sincerity. It is further submitted that she is working in the respondent college since 2016-17 and her appointment is through the selection process, which is legal and valid. She was continuously teaching but the respondents No.1 and 2 advertised the post of petitioner. Therefore, aggrieved by the action of the official respondents, petitioner filed a petition being Writ Petition No.5934 of 2017 and this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 13.9.2017 has categorically held that the guest faculty cannot be replaced by another guest faculty or until regular appointments are made. The respondent department issued the guidelines on 17.12.2019 for the guest faculties working against the post of Assistant Professor. The respondent fallen out the petitioner due to transfer against the order dated 13.9.2017. The official respondent had issued an order dated 25.2.2022 whereby clause 2.3 of the policy dated 17.12.2019 has been amended. The respondent No.4 had been first time appointed as guest faculty on 23.4.2022 at Government College Alot District Ratnam and thereafter she was relocated at the Holkar Science College, Indore vide order dated 2.9.2022. It is her case that on 7.10.2022, the official respondents transferred Dr. Swagata Gupta, Assistant Professor (Chemistry) to the Government Holkar Science College, Indore and respondent No.3 issued a letter No.111/22 dated 10.10.2022 by which the petitioner came to know that the petitioner has been declared as fallen out in place of respondent No.4, which is contrary to the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Yadav and Others v. M.P State and Others (Writ Petition No.6159 of 2022) and other connected matters vide order dated 26.4.2022 as well as in the case of Saurabh Singh Baghel and others v. State of M.P and others reported in 2019 (1) MPLJ 643, whereby it is categorically held that the guest faculty cannot be replaced by another guest faculty or until regular appointments are made. The petitioner has prayed that the similar relief may be extended to her. Therefore, the petition was filed.
3. Counsel for the respondent/State has objected to the averments of the writ petition pointing out the fact that the appointment of the petitioner was contractual in nature for a limited period. It is nowhere mentioned in the writ petition that the petitioner has been replaced by another guest faculty. In absence of any averment with respect to replacement of the petitioner with an other guest faculty, no interim protection can be granted to the petitioner because the appointment of the petitioner was contractual in nature. The judgement passed by this Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Yadav (supra), is also to the extent that in case the petitioner has worked in the previous session and is being replaced by another set of contractual employee. The employer is having all rights to remove a contractual employee like petitioner on completion of her contract period considering the strength of students and requirement of work. But, in absence of any cogent explanation or justification regarding re
