A guest faculty working under a government university have the right to not be replaced by other guest faculty: High Court of Chhattisgarh

 1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 28021 Ku. Khorin Markam D o Late Dhaniram Markam Aged About 28 Years Working As Guest Faculty At Government Naveen College Bhairamgarh District Bijapur Chhattisgarh Petitioner 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Higher Education Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Commissioner Higher Education Department Block C 3 2nd And 3rd Floor Indravati Bhawan Naya Raipur Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. The Principal Government Naveen College Bhairamgarh District Bijapur Respondents Shri Vikas Dubey Advocate. Shri Amrito Das Addl. AG Hon ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 1. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that since the petitioner was working as a Guest Lecturer under the respondent No.3 for the academic year 2020 21 and academic sessions has come to an end in 2021 the respondents should not be permitted to replace the petitioner by another set of contractual 2. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner has undergone a due process of selection for being appointed as a Guest Lecturer and that the services of the petitioner also was satisfactory as there 2 is no complaint whatsoever so far as the competency of the petitioner is concerned. It is further the 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 process for filling up of the posts of Guest Lecturers under the respondent No.3 for the subject in which the petitioner was taking classes. 3. Counsel for the 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 Directorhave been granted protection from being replaced by another set of Guest Lecturers 4. The State counsel opposing the petition submits that it is a case where no cause of action has till date arisen in as much 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 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 are till an alternative arrangement is made by way of regular recruitment contractual 6. Further from the records it also does not appear that the performance of the petitioner at any point of time was found to be 3 unsatisfactory. In the case of “Manju Gupta”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 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 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 of Guest Lecturers for last more than 1 2 years itself is a good ground for permitting the Petitioners to continue on the said posts as Guest Lecturers simply for the reason of their experience on the said post as fresh recruitment would mean that persons with no or less experience would be participating in the recruitment process which also would not be in the interest of the students who are undertaking training in the respective institutions 10. Taking into consideration the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Piara Singh and which has been further reiterated in the case of Dr. Chanchal Goyalthis Court has no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that the advertisement 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 Petitioners 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 11. It is directed that the Respondents would not be entitled for filling up the posts of Guest Lecturer by replacing the Petitioners unless the Respondents come up with a stand that the services of the Petitioners were dis satisfactory. The qaushment 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 4 by way of contractual appointment for which the Respondents shall be free.” 7. This Court under the given circumstances is inclined to accept the same analogy in the case of the petitioner also and accordingly it is ordered that unless there is any complaint received against the performance of the petitioner the respondents are restrained from going in for any fresh recruitment of a Guest Lecturer for the said subject under the respondent No.3 college against which the petitioner was engaged It is however made clear that the protection to the petitioner would be only to the extent of not being replaced by another set of Guest Lecturers. This would not preclude the State Government from going in for filling up of the post by way of a regular appointment or by way of engaging contractual teachers under the rules for contractual 9. So far as the claim of remuneration as per the guidelines of the UGC is concerned it would be open for the petitioner to make a suitable representation before the respondent No.1 in this regard who in turn would take a policy decision so far as the remuneration part payable to the Guest Lecturers keeping in view of the guidelines that have been laid down by the UGC. 10. With the aforesaid observations the present writ petition stands disposed off. Sd P. Sam Koshy

Summary: Although guest faculty are employed on a temporary basis, they still have the right to not be replaced by fresh guest faculty unless there have been serious shortcomings in their services. This was upheld by single-member bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh consisting of Honorable Justice Sam Koshy in the case of Khorin Markam v State of Chhatthisgarh [WPS No. 2807 of 2021] on 23rd June 2021. The petitioner, Miss Khorin Markam was working as a Guest lecturer for sociology at Government Naveen College Bhairamgarh in Chhatisgarh for the year 2020-21. The petitioner brought to the notice of the court that she went through a rigorous selection process to be appointed as a guest lecturer, was always competent in her role and never had any complaints against her performance. For this reason she contended that the respondents should not be permitted to replace her with new guest lecturers now that the academic year was finished. The petitioner’s counsel cited the case of Manju Gupta &amp; others v State of Chhattisgarh [WPS No. 4406/2016] where the court held that  “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”. The respondents argued that the matter was premature since no harm had been caused to the petitioner yet and so the petition should be rejected outright.