An ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee and that the position of Guest Teachers is akin to an ad hoc employee: High Court of Chhattisgarh

1AFRHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR Writ Appeal No.32191.State of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary Tribal WelfareDevelopment Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2.The Commisioner Chhattisgarh State Level Tribal Welfare Awasiya EvamAshram Shaikshshnik Sansthan Samiti Indrawati Bhawan Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3.The Assistant Commissioner Tribal Welfare And Development Department Gourela Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh. 4.The Collector Office Of The Collector District Gourela Pendra MarwahiChhattisgarh. 5.The Principal Government Eklavya Adarsh Avasiya Vidhyalaya Dongariya District Gourela Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh. Appellants Versus 1.Akhilesh Kumar Mishra S o Shri Phekulal Mishra Aged About 30 YearsOccupation Guest TeacherGovernment Eklavya AdarshAvasiya Vidhyalaya Dongariya District Gourela Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh. R o Village Raweli Post Vijaypur Tehsil Lormi District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. 2.Bhimsen Sonwani S o Shri Tulsi Prasad Aged About 27 Years Occupation Guest TeacherGovernment Eklavya Adarsh AvasiyaVidhyalaya Dongariya District Gourela Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh.R o Village Bargawan Post Bharridand Tehsil Marwahi District Gourela Pendra Marwani Chhattisgarh. Respondents(Cause title taken from Case Information System)For Appellants State: Mr. Siddharth Dubey Deputy Government Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Swajit Singh AdvocateHon ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami Chief JusticeHon ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal JudgeJudgment on BoardPer Arup Kumar Goswami Chief Justice25.10.2021Heard Mr. Siddharth Dubey learned Deputy Government Advocate forthe appellants. Also heard Mr. Swajit Singh learned counsel appearing for therespondents. 22.This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 04.11.2020passed by learned Single Judge in Writ PetitionNo.45720 allowing thewrit petition with the following operative directions which are at paragraphs 7 and 8of the order under assailment.3.Paragraphs 7 and 8 are extracted herein below for betterappreciation:“7. This Court under the given circumstances isinclined to accept the same analogy in the case ofthe petitioners also and accordingly it is orderedthat unless there is any complaint received againstthe performance of the petitioners therespondents are restrained from going in for anyfresh recruitment of a Guest Teacher for the saidsubject under the respondent No.5 against whichthe petitioners were engaged.8. It is however made clear that the protection tothe petitioners would be only to the extent of notbeing replaced by another set of Guest Teachers.This would not preclude the State Governmentfrom going in for filling up of the post by way of aregular appointment or by way of engagingcontractual teachers under the rules forcontractual employment. The remuneration of theguest teachers shall be guided by the fresh set ofpayment which may be decided by the State asthere cannot be two sets of payments for the samepost.” 34.The writ petitioners approached this Court assailing an advertisementdated 21.09.2020 inviting applications for recruitment of Guest Teachers in respectof 71 Eklavya Adarsh Awasi School. Case of the writ petitioners was that afterundergoing a due process of selection for being appointed as Guest Teachers theywere selected as Guest Teachers for the academic session 2019 20 and that theirperformance was also satisfactory. In the background of aforesaid factual matrix itwas contended that inviting applications for Guest Teachers for the subsequentyear for the very same subjects which the petitioners were teaching was contrary tothe decision of Hon ble Surpeme Court in State of Haryana & Others v. PiaraSingh and Others reported in4 SCC 118.5.Mr. Siddharth Dubey learned counsel for the appellants submits thatthe impugned judgment was delivered by the learned Single Judge withoutaffording an opportunity to the State to rebut the contention and therefore theorder is liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of principles of naturaljustice.6.Shri Swajit Singh learned counsel for the respondents writ petitioners on the other hand submits that the learned Single Judge relied on an establishedproposition of law and therefore even if any opportunity was granted the samewould not have enured to the benefit of the appellants. Therefore in the facts andcircumstances of the case no prejudice can be said to have been caused to theappellants he submits.7.We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for theparties and have perused the material on record.8.Though it is true that the writ petition came to be disposed of withoutaffording an opportunity to the State to file its response what cannot be lost sightof the fact is that the law is well settled that an ad hoc employee cannot bereplaced by another ad hoc employee and that the position of Guest Teachers is 4akin to an ad hoc employee. The learned Single Judge had also noted that theorder of appointment of the writ petitioners had a clause mentioning that theappointment so made are till an alternative arrangement is made by way of regularrecruitment contractual transfer. It is not pleaded in the writ appeal that there areany complaints against the writ petitioners or that their service was otherwise notsatisfactory. Therefore in our considered opinion even though the appellants werenot given an opportunity of contesting the writ petition under the facts andcircumstances of the case according to our perception no prejudice was causedto the appellants.9.In that view of the matter we see no good ground to interfere with theorder of the learned Single Judge and accordingly the writ appeal being devoid ofmerit is dismissed. No costs. Sd Sd (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Chief Justice Judge Anu 

Summary: What cannot be lost sight of the fact is that the law is well-settled that an ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee and that the position of Guest Teachers is akin to an ad hoc employee as upheld by the High Court of Chhattisgarh through the learned bench led by  Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal in the case of  State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. v. Akhilesh Kumar Mishra  and Ors.(Writ Appeal No.322 of 2019). The brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioners approached this Court assailing an advertisement dated 21.09.2020 inviting applications for recruitment of Guest Teachers in respect of 71 Eklavya Adarsh Awasi School. Case of the writ petitioners was that after undergoing a due process of selection for being appointed as Guest Teachers, they were selected as Guest Teachers for the academic session 2019-20 and that their performance was also satisfactory. In the background of aforesaid factual matrix, it was contended that inviting applications for Guest Teachers for the subsequent year for the very same subjects which the petitioners were teaching was contrary to the decision of Hon’ble Surpeme Court in State of Haryana &amp; Others v. Piara Singh and Others reported in (1992) 4 SCC 118.  Mr. Siddharth Dubey, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment was delivered by the learned Single Judge without affording an opportunity to the State to rebut the contention and therefore, the order is liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. Shri Swajit Singh, learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners, on the other hand, submits that the learned Single Judge relied on an established proposition of law and therefore, even if any opportunity was granted, the same would not have enured to the benefit of the appellants. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the appellants, he submits. After the perusal of the facts and arguments, the Hon’ble Court held, “The order of appointment of the writ petitioners had a clause mentioning that the appointment so made are till an alternative arrangement is made by way of regular recruitment/contractual/transfer. It is not pleaded in the writ appeal that there are any complaints against the writ petitioners or that their service was otherwise not satisfactory. Therefore, in our considered opinion, even though the appellants were not given an opportunity of contesting the writ petition, under the facts and circumstances of the case, according to our perception, no prejudice was caused to the appellants. In that view of the matter, we see no good ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge and accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit, is dismissed. No costs.”