Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
News Updates

Legitimate Expectation: Chhattisgarh High Court Restrains University From Replacing Guest Lecturer Except By Way Of Regular/ Contractual Appointment

Zeb Hasan
5 May 2022 4:34 AM GMT
Legitimate Expectation: Chhattisgarh High Court Restrains University From Replacing Guest Lecturer Except By Way Of Regular/ Contractual Appointment
x

The Chhattisgarh high Court has reiterated that merely because a person is appointed as a "Guest Lecturer" at a college or a University, does not mean that he/she does not have any right. Drawing analogy from the case of Manju Gupta & others v. State of Chhattisgarh & others, it held that such persons have a "legitimate expectation" of not being replaced, in the absence of any...

The Chhattisgarh high Court has reiterated that merely because a person is appointed as a "Guest Lecturer" at a college or a University, does not mean that he/she does not have any right.

Drawing analogy from the case of Manju Gupta & others v. State of Chhattisgarh & others, it held that such persons have a "legitimate expectation" of not being replaced, in the absence of any complaint against their performance, except by way of regular/ contractual appointments.

Justice P. Sam Koshy said:

"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."

The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition was that he was working as a Guest Lecturer at Indra Gandhi Govt. P.G. College (respondent No.3) for the academic year 2021-22 and the respondents should not be permitted to replace him by another set of contractual Guest Lecturers.

He stated that he had 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 was 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.

He relied on a judgment passed by the High Court in Manju Gupta & others v. State of Chhattisgarh & others, whereby the similarly placed Guest Lecturers under the Director (Industrial Training Institute) were granted protection from being replaced by another set of Guest Lecturers.

The State counsel opposing the petition submitted 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.

The Court after perusing the appointment letter noted that the order of appointment specifically had a clause mentioning that the appointment made is till an alternative arrangement is made by way of regular recruitment/contractual/ transfer.

Court also recorded that from the records, it also does not appear that the performance of the petitioner, at any point of time, was found to be unsatisfactory.

Therefore in view of the above discussion, the court decided to apply the analogy pronounced in case of Manju Gupta (Supra), the Court however made it clear that the 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.

With regard to the claim on remuneration was concerned the Court said that it would be open for the petitioner to make a suitable representation before the respondent No.1 in this regard as per the guidelines of UGC, who in turn will take a policy decision on this subject.

The petition was disposed of.

Case Title: M. Jayshree Reddy v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Chh) 40

Click Here To Read/Download Order


Next Story