1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Writ Petition (S) No. 2233 of 2022

Omprakash S/o Nanda Ram, Aged About 24 Years, Working As Guest

Faculty (Political Science) At Govt. College, Nikum, District Durg

Chhattisgarh

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Higher

Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District

Raipur (C.G.)

2. Additional Director, Directorate Of Higher Education Department, Atal Nagar,

Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

3. Principal, Govt. College, Nikum, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents

For Petitioner

:

Mr. Govind Prasad Dewangan, Advocate

For State

:

Mr. R. M. Solapurkar, Govt. Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy

Order On Board

01.04.2022

1. The grievance of petitioner in the present writ petition is that since the

petitioner was working as Guest Lecturer under 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. Contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner has

undergone a due process of selection for being appointed as a Guest

Lecturer and that the service of petitioner also was satisfactory as there is no

complaint whatsoever, so far as the competency of petitioner is concerned.

It is further 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

2

process for filling up of the posts of Guest Lecturers under respondent No.3

for the subject in which the petitioner was taking classes.

3. Learned counsel for 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. Learned State counsel opposing the petition submits that it is a case where

no cause of action has till date arisen, inasmuch 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 is till an alternative arrangement is made by way of

recruitment through regular/ contractual/ transfer.

6. Further from the records, it also does not appear that the performance of

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

3

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