ORDER ON BOARD

20 /07/2023

1. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was engaged as Guest Lecturer of Chemistry with Respondent No. 3 for the academic session 2022-23. She has successfully completed academic session without any complaint. As the academic session came to an end, petitioner is apprehending that Respondents No. 3/ College may issue fresh advertisement for appointment of Guest Lecturer of the concerned subject for which petitioner was engaged. The college is adopting the measures of issuing advertisement for appointment of Guest Lecturers in each academic session which is highly arbitrary. Guest Lecturer like petitioner is unnecessarily forced to approach this court by way of filing writ petition to seek protection of the Court. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon decision of Manju Gupta and others vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others [WPS No. 4406/2016, 27.02.2017] whereby similarly placed Guest Lecturers under the Director (Industrial Training Institute) have been granted protection from being replaced by another set of Guest Lecturers. He also relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Gupta and another etc. vs. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti and others [(2022) 6 SCALE 780].

2. Learned State counsel submits that petition is pre-mature as the petitioner has already completed one academic session for which she was appointed as Guest Lecturer and as per the Circular/ Instructions issued by the State Government the Guest Lecturers are to be appointed only when regular post of subject lecturer is vacant in the Institution. Petition is filed only on apprehension of being replaced by another Guest Lecturers.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. True it is that in the case of Manju Gupta (supra) this Court observed that the status of petitioners therein to be Guest Lecturer but that does not mean that they do not have any right. There is always a legitimate expectation of the petitioners and held thus:

“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 Industrial Training Institute, Ambikapur, and the same would amount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the same therefore deserves to be and is accordingly quashed. The advertisement would be deemed to be quashed only to the extent of the recruitment against the posts at which the petitioner are discharging. That is to say, the Respondents would be entitled to fill up the posts which are lying vacant by way of Guest Lecturers where there are no Guest Lecturers available.

11. It is directed that the Respondents would not be entitled for filling up the posts of Guest Lecturer by replacing the petitioner unless the Respondents come up with a stand that the services of the petitioner were dis-satisfactory. The quashment of the advertisement issued by the Respondents would also not come in the way of the Respondents for filling up of the sanctioned vacant posts by regular recruitment or by way of contractual appointment for which the Respondents shall be free.”

5. However, considering the objection raised by learned State counsel with respect to maintainability of writ petition at this stage as no cause of action is arisen, on being asked, learned counsel for petitioner fairly submitted that as of now the Respondent No. 3/ College has not issued fresh advertisement for appointment of Guest Lecturers on which petitioner was engaged in the last academic session.

6. Considering the aforementioned submission of learned counsel for petitioner, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition at this stage because petition is filed only on apprehension. Respondents