1 2025:CGHC:25162-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 368 of 2025 Gayatri D/o Sohan Lal Aged About 28 Years Earlier Working As Guest Faculty (Political Science) At Govt. College, Arjunda, District Balod (Chhattisgarh) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Commissioner, Higher Education Department, Block C-3, 2nd And 3rd Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3 - The Principal Govt. College, Arjunda, District Balod (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rupendra Kumar Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.06.19 10:38:17 +0530 2 18.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rupendra Kumar Dewangan, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for respondent/State. 2. The present writ appeal is preferred assailing the order dated 03.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 4689/2024 (Gayatri vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others), whereby, the writ petition filed by the appellant herein was disposed of the learned Single Judge with following terms:- “The State Government would be at liberty to appoint the Guest Lecturers strictly in accordance with the minimum qualification as prescribed in the Regulation of 2018 and also in the Policy of 2024. However it is also made clear that the petitioners shall not be replaced by similar set of Guest Lecturer having similar qualification as the petitioners are having.” 3. It has been pointed out by learned counsel, appearing for the appellant as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents that in an identical matter, this Bench had dismissed WA No. 729/2024 (Gayatri Sharma vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) vide order dated 08.11.2024, observing as follows : “15. The appellant/writ petitioner has failed to establish that an ad hoc or temporary appointee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary appointee and if a temporary appointee in service is incompetent, can he not be allowed to be replaced with a competent or more competent person. There is no reason why the 3 competent person cannot be appointed in place of the incompetent person, when both the appointments are ad hoc or temporary in nature. 16. In the present case, the appellant/writ petitioner is also a Guest Lecturer which is a temporary arrangement for one academic session. If the State has come up with a new Policy of 2024 which is in conformity with the UGC guidelines and better candidates would be available for the said posts, it cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable if the State decides to advertise those posts and appoint fresh Guest Lecturers having better and higher qualifications in comparison to the existing ones with lesser qualification. Even otherwise, it is a settled position of law that the Courts cannot interfere with the soundness and wisdom of a policy. A policy is subject to judicial review on the limited grounds of compliance with the fundamental rights and other provisions of the Constitution. The Policy of 2024 would definitely be in the larger interest of the students. 17. We are totally in agreement with the reasons and observations of the learned Single Judge which is just and proper warranting no interference. No relief(s) as sought for by the appellant/writ petitioner can be granted in this appeal as it is for the State to decide what would be the best in the interest of the institution and the students. Even otherwise, the learned Single Judge has made it clear that the appellant/writ petitioner shall not be replaced by similar set of Guest Lecturer having similar qualification as the appellant is 4 having and to that extent, the rights and interest of the appellant/writ petitioner remains secure. 18. As a result, this appeal stands dismissed. ” They further submit that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WA No. 729/2024, this appeal may also be dismissed in the same terms. 4. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is identical to WA No. 729/2024, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WA No. 729/2024. 5. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 18.11.2024 passed in WA No. 729/2024. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet