[ad_1]
Chattisgarh High Court
Ravindra Singh Chhabda vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 April, 2025
SMT 1
NIRMALA
RAO
2025:CGHC:19337
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 7311 of 2018
1 - Ravindra Singh Chhabda S/o Shri Mahendra Singh Chhabda Aged
About 28 Years Occupation- Guest Faculty ( Subject English ),
Government Collage Pithora, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.,
District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
2 - Dhiraj Kumar Uikey S/o Shri Rahit Kumar Uikey Aged About 26
Years Occupation- Guest Faculty ( Subject Zoology ), Government
Collage Pithora, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh., District :
Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
3 - Ku. Maihnoor Sayyada D/o Shri Julfikar Ali Aged About 27 Years
Occupation- Guest Faculty ( Subject Hindi ), Government
Bhanupratapdev P. G. College Kanker, District- North Bastar Kanker
Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioners
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary, Department Of
Higher Education, Mantralaya, Indiravati Bhawan, New Raipur,
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - The Commissioner Through Higher Education, Block C-3, 2nd And
3rd, Floor, Indravati Bhawan, New Raipur, District- Raipur,
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Principal Through Government College Pithora, District-
Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
4 - Principal Through Bhanupatapdev Govt. P. G. College, Kanker,
District- North Baster Kanker, Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker,
Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
with
WPS No. 7501 of 2018
1 – Ajay Kumar Bhoi S/o Ashok Bhoi Aged About 37 Years R/o Patel
Muhalla Torwa, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District :
2
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
2 – Bhupendra Singh Verma S/o Late Main Singh Verma Aged About
40 Years R/o Civil Lines, Parsa Bhader Road, Kokdi, Baloda Bazar,
District – Baloda Bazar – Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., District :
Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
3 – Ramakant Verma S/o Ramkhilawan Verma Aged About 36 Years
R/o Village Seja, Post Bhandarpuri, Tahsil Arang, District – Raipur
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4 – Nitesh Kumar Verma S/o Shankar Lal Verma Aged About 26 Years
R/o Village Hathband, Tahsil Simga, District – Baloda Bazar –
Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara,
Chhattisgarh
5 – Girdhari Lal Kashyap S/o Lakhan Kashyap Aged About 27 Years
R/o Village Katod, Tahsil Navagarh, District – Janjgir-Champa,
Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
6 – Jimi Pritam Manhare S/o K. R. Manhare Aged About 27 Years R/o
Village Chhuiha, Post Khaida, Tahsil Baloda – Bazar, District – Baloda
Bazar – Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara,
Chhattisgarh
7 – Guneshwari Bandhe W/o Shivkumar Bandhe Aged About 34 Years
R/o Village Matwari, Post Sundrawan, Tahsil Palari, District – Baloda
Bazar – Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara,
Chhattisgarh
—- Petitioners
Versus
1 – State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Employment And
Training Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Naya
Raipur, District – Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 – Director Employment And Training Directorate, Chhattisgarh,
Raipur, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 – Joint Director Training Industrial Training Centre, Regional Office
Baloda Bazar, District – Baloda Bazar – Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.,
District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
4 – Principal Industrial Training Centre, Sakri, Baloda Bazar, District –
Baloda Bazar – Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-
Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
—- Respondents
For the respective Petitioners : Shri Shyamta Prashant Sannat
and Ms. Akanksha Sharma,
Advocate holding the brief of Shri
Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate.
3
For Respondent/State : Shri Prateek Tiwari and Shri
Topilal Bareth, P.L.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order On Board
29/04/2025
1. In WP(S) No.7311 of 2018, the petitioners have filed this petition
seeking the following reliefs:-
“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to
quash the impugned advertisement (Annexure P/1) and
further be pleased to direct the respondents to continue the
petitioners as Guest Faculty under the respondent colleges
till regular appointment is made and incumbent is given
joining, in the interest of justice.
10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct
the respondent/state to give minimum regular pay scale
attached to the post of Assistant Professor with grade pay
arrears with all consequential benefits in view of judgment
reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148 in the interest of justice.
10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct
the respondents/state to make payment as per U.G.C.
regulation Rs. 1000/- per lecture subject to Rs. 24,000/-
alongwith arrears to the petitioners in the interest of justice.
10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to hold
that policy adopted by respondent/state under which every
year fresh appointment is given by replacing already serving
Guest Faculty is illegal, arbitrary and same may be
quashed, in the interest of justice.
10.5 That, this Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to
direct respondents/state to make payment of salary of
semester break also to the petitioners and award similar
relief in the light of judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
cases AIR 1987 SC 478 & (2017) 13 SCC 292 referred in
4the present case, in the interest of justice.
10.6 Any other writ or direction which this Hon’ble Court
deems fit and proper as per the nature of the case may be
passed. An affidavit in support of this writ petition is filed
herewith.”
In WP(S) No.7501 of 2018, the petitioners have filed this petition
seeking the following reliefs:-
“1] That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to
issue a writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders,
quashing the advertisement (Annex.P/1) (no date has
been mentioned), issued by the Principal, Industrial
Training Institute, Sakri, Baloda Bazar so far as it relates
to the post occupied by the petitioners are concerned and
the Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to set-aside the
order dated 30.07.2018 passed by the respondent No. 4
and the petitioners may kindly be reinstate and allowed to
continue on the post of Guest Lecturers till the said post is
being filled by regular or contractual appointment.
2] That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant
any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the
aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the
respondents may kindly be directed to extend the period
of service of the petitioners as Guest Lecturers till the
regular appointment of the Lecturers on contract basis.
2. This batch of petitions has been filed by the Guest Lecturers who
were appointed in the respective Colleges/Institutes for a period of one
academic session. The Guest Lecturers so appointed were getting the
honorarium of Rs. 20,800/- & Rs.10,000/- per month, respectively. The
petitioners have filed these petitions on the grounds that they were
selected after a due selection process for the post of Guest Lecturer,
their performance was found satisfactory and there were no complaints
5
against them. Their apprehension is that the concerned
colleges/Industrial Training Institutes may issue a fresh advertisement
for the appointment of Guest Lecturers in the next academic session
and therefore, it is submitted that an ad hoc employee cannot be
replaced by another ad hoc employee, and hence, direction may be
issued to the concerned Colleges/Institutes and the respondents to
permit the petitioners to continue on the post of Guest Lecturers for the
next academic session. Counsels for the petitioners have placed
reliance upon the judgments passed by this Court in WPS No. 4573 of
2020 (Akhilesh Kumar Mishra & Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
& Others) and WPS No. 6144 of 2021 (Roopa Devi Kurrey & Others
Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others).
3. On the other hand, counsel for the State would submit that the
petitions have been filed on a mere apprehension. No advertisement
as alleged by the petitioners has been issued by any of the Colleges/
Institutes. The petitioners were appointed for a particular academic
session and after completion of that academic session, they have no
right to continue. The order for continuation would be violative of Article
16 of the Constitution of India, which speaks about the right to equal
opportunity in matters relating to public employment.
4. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents
and judgments passed by the Coordinate Benches.
5. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Manish Gupta
And Another Vs. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti and Others
reported in 2022 SC Online SC 485 has held as under:-
“A perusal of the advertisement dated 24th June 2016
issued by the principal, Government Kamla Raja Girls Post
6Graduate Autonomous College, Gwalior, which is an
Annexure P-2 of the Appeal Paper Book and the
advertisement dated 2nd July 2016 issued by the Principal,
SMS Government Model Science College, Gwalior, M.P.
which is at Annexure P-3 of the Appeal Paper Book, would
show that the appointments were to be made after the
candidates had gone through due selection procedure.
Though Shri Nataraj, learned ASG has strenuously urged
that the appointments of the appellants were as guest
lecturers and not as ad hoc employees, from the nature of
the advertisements, it could clearly be seen that the
appellants were appointed on ad hoc basis. It is a settled
principle of law that an ad hoc employee cannot be
replaced by another ad hoc employee and he can be
replaced only by another candidate who is regularly
appointed by following a regular procedure prescribed.
Reliance in this respect can be placed on the judgment of
this Court in the case of Rattan Lal Vs. State of Haryana
(1985) 4 SCC 43 and on the order of this Court in the case
of Hargurpratap Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2007) 13 SCC
292.
8. In Roopa Devi Kurrey (supra) vide order dated 12.11.2021 the
following was passed by the coordinate bench of this Court:-
“11. Consequently, in exercise of the powers
conferred by Rule 33 of the High Court of
Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007, it is hereby recommended
that all the papers of these proceedings of present
matter be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for
consideration and for appropriate orders for
constitution of a larger Bench for settling the
following issues:-
“A. Whether in absence of cause of action, the
petition as framed and instituted seeking the relief in
the nature of issuance of writ of mandamus under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India could be held
to be sustainable?
B. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the
case, the Petitioners could institute the petition after
the completion of her academic session?”
Further, in Roopa Devi Kurrey (supra) vide order dated 02.08.2022 it
was held by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court that:-
“2. It is brought to our notice that following the issues
framed in this case, some other cases are also
tagged with this petition.
7
3. Mr. Govind Ram Dewangan, learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that this writ petition has been
rendered infructuous.
4. In view of the submission of Mr. Dewangan, we do
not find it necessary to decide the issues as framed
by the learned Single Judge in the petition. However,
if the issues survive for consideration in other tagged
petitions, the same shall be considered.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as
infructuous.”
9. In the matter of Roopa Devi Kurrey (supra), the order was not
passed on the merits of the case. In the matter of Akhilesh Kumar
Mishra (supra), as a fresh advertisement was issued for the
appointment of guest teachers, the order was passed in favour of those
teachers, whereas in the present case, advertisements were issued in
the years 2017-2018, therefore, the facts of these cases are
distinguishable. It would be worthy to take note that the interim orders
were passed in favour of the petitioners and they are still continuing in
the post of guest lecturers. Advertisements were issued in the year
2017-18 and in the next academic session, the colleges may or may not
issue fresh advertisements and only on apprehension, orders cannot be
passed in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, these petitions are
dismissed. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to approach this
Court, if any cause of action arises.
11. With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), these petitions
stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Nimmi
[ad_2]
Source link