IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH, CHIEF JUSTICE &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA st ON THE 1 OF APRIL, 2023 WRIT PETITION No. 7087 of 2023 BETWEEN:-

RAJKUMARI MALVIYA D/O SHRI NATHURAM MALVIYA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION: GUEST FACULTY MATH / DRAWING IN GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR GAUTAM - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION AND SKILL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MANTRALAYA VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. DIRECTOR SKILL DEVELOPMENT NARMADA ROAD JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. JOINT DIRECTOR SKILL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REGIONAL OFFICE BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. PR I N C I PA L GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE (I.T.I.) VIDISHA DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (SHRI ANKIT AGRAWAL - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3)

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHALINI This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the following:

ORDER

Office objection on territorial jurisdiction is overruled.

This petition has been filed challenging the action of the respondents in not permitting the petitioner to work as Guest Faculty in the respondents' institution. It is the case of the petitioner that she was appointed on 17.02.2022 on the post of Guest Faculty (Maths) in the Industrial Training Institute, Vidisha for eleven months and she performed the work till 16.01.2023. On 13.01.2023, respondent no.4 has cancelled the appointment of petitioner and discharged her from the work. It is submitted that this Court has already considered the case of Guest Faculties in Writ Petition No.6159 of 2022 and has directed to continue all the Guest Faculty who are working till the regular appointments are made. The respondents have already passed a general order dated 21.02.2023 subject to continuation of Guest Faculty who are working in the Educational Institutions. The case of the petitioner has not been taken into consideration by the respondents, therefore, the petition has been filed. The petitioner has already preferred a representation before the respondents authorities, the same has not been considered.

2. Per contra, State counsel has vehemently opposed the contentions stating that the initial appointment of the petitioner was on contractual basis for a period of eleven months. There is nothing on record placed by the petitioner to show that the petitioner has been replaced by another Guest Faculty. The direction given by this Court in Writ Petition No.6159 of 2022 is to the extent that the Guest Faculty cannot be replaced by another Guest Faculty or in case regular appointments are made then the replacement can be done. The petitioner Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHALINI could not point out that who has been appointed in her place. On the contrary, the general directions have been issued by the respondents/State to consider the cases of the Guest Faculties who have worked in the previous academic session. Therefore, virtually there is no grievance of the petitioner. In these circumstances, no mandamus can be issued directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to join her services. He has prayed for dismissal of the petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. Admittedly, the petitioner was a Guest Faculty engaged on 17.02.2022 for a period of eleven months. The session is already over. There is nothing on record to show that the replacement of the petitioner has been made by anyone. In absence of any replacement of the petitioner by any other Guest Faculty, no relief can be extended to the petitioner. The order passed in Writ Petition No.6159 of 2022 is applicable to the case of the petitioner but her continuation can be ordered if there is any replacement. The petitioner being a contract employee and the law with respect to a contractual employee was considered and decided by the Hon'ble