Guest lecturer has the right against being replaced with another guest lecturer unless there are complaints regarding performance: High Court of Chhattisgarh

 1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ PetitionNo. 35621 1. Kanchan Gupta D o. Naresh Prasad Aged About 25 Years Working As Guest FacultyAt Govt. Rani Durgavati College Wadrafnagar District Balrampur RamanujganjDistrict : Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Additional Director Directorate Of Higher Education Department Atal Nagar Naya Raipur District Raipur District : Raipur 3. Principal Govt. Rani Durgawati College Wadrafnagar District Balrampur RamanujganjDistrict : Balrampur Chhattisgarh Respondents Shri Govind Dewangan Advocate. Shri Ishan Verma Panel Lawyer 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 session 2020 21 the respondents should not be permitted to replace the petitioner by another set of contractual Guest Lecturers 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 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 2 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 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 are till an alternative arrangement is made by way of regular recruitment contractual transfer 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 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 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 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 3 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 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 8. 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 employment 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 10. With the aforesaid observations the present writ petition stands disposed down by the UGC P. Sam Koshy

Summary: Guest lecturers may not be permanent employees but they still have certain right by law. The state cannot replace a guest lecturer with another guest lecturer unless there are complaints regarding their performance or competence. This was held in the case of Kanchan Gupta v State of Chhattisgarh &amp; others [Writ Petition (S) No. 3568 of 2021] by a single member bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh consisting of Justice P. Sam Koshy on the 14th of July 2021. The petitioner, Kanchan Gupta was working as a guest lecturer for the Government Rani Durgawati College Wadrafnagar in Chhatisgarh through the academic year 2020-21. In the present writ petition, she prays that the respondents should not be permitted to replace the petitioner with another set of contractual guest lecturers. It was further contended that the petitioner has undergone a due process of selection before being appointed as a guest lecturer and furthermore that there was never at any point any complaint about the petitioner’s performance or competence. The state counsel opposed the petition stating that the petitioner filed the present writ petition only on apprehension and that since there was no cause of action, the matter was premature and deserved to be rejected. The petitioner cited the very similar case of Manju Gupta &amp; others v State of Chhattisgarh &amp; others [WPS No. 4406/2016], where it was held that a guest lecturer working under a government institution was granted protection from being replaced by another guest lecturer. The High Court in that case stated that “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 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”.