1 2025:CGHC:43044 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9515 of 2025 1 - Ashtima Pandey W/o Shri Loknath Pandey Aged About 30 Years Occupation - Guest Lecturer (Botany), Government New College, Sonhat, Dist. - Koriya Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Ministry At Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, P.S. Rakhi, Dist. - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Commissioner Higher Education, Directorate At Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur, P.S. Rakhi, Dist. - Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Principal New Government College, Sonhat, P.O. And P.S. Sonhat, Distt. - Koriya Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jai Prakash Shukla, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Sabyasachi Choubey, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 25/08/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition claiming the following reliefs:- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to call the entire records pertaining to this case. VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.09.01 18:18:44 +0530 2 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the nature of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, thereby to declare the impugned advertisement dated 28-07-2025 (Annexure P/1) to the extent it relates to the petitioner's subject Botany, to be unconstitutional, illegal and arbitrary and further to quash it. 10.3 Hon'ble court may kindly further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to keep petitioner continue at place/post she has been working continuously since 2018 and further to prohibit respondent authorities from substituting petitioner by proposed another guest lecturer through fresh selection process. 10.4 Hon'ble court may kindly further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to implement policy no 6.1 of policy 2024 (Annexure P/4) only in fresh selection process took place after 2024 and not for the substituting the candidates who have been appointed prior to 2024 sans policy, and further to pass any other relief(s) which it deems fit along with cost of the petition in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner was initially appointed as Guest Lecturer (Botany) on 06.10.2018. After successful completion of Academic Session 2018-19, the respondent authorities had issued fresh selection process for appointment of Guest Lecturer (Botany), which was challenged by the petitioner in WPS No. 2572 of 2019, which was disposed of on 08.04.2019 restraining the respondents from fresh recruitment process of a Guest Lecturer. Thereafter, the petitioner continued up to the Academic Session of 2024-25. In the year 2024, a policy has been introduced by the State Government for appointment of the Guest Lecturer and clause 6.1 of the policy of 2024 provided for the additional marks for 3 Ph.D./NET/SET/M.Phil candidates. Since the petitioner is continuously working since 2018, and her appointment was protected by the order passed in WPS No. 2572 of 2019, she cannot be substituted by another set of Guest Lecturer through fresh selection process. The petitioner moved her representation on 21.05.2025 and had filed WPS No. 8085 of 2025, however during pendency of the said writ petition the respondents issued fresh advertisement on 28.07.2025 for appointment on the post of Guest Lecturer (Botany) as well as for other subjects. He would further submit that the advertisement dated 28.07.2025 provided that the candidates should have possessed Ph.D/NET/SET/M.Phil degree and if there is no candidate having such qualification, then only the Guest Lecturers, who worked earlier, they would be called as per the merit list. Therefore, the petitioner has challenged the advertisement and continuation of her services as Guest Lecturer (Botany). 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, opposed and would submit that, although the petitioner was earlier working as Guest Lecturer (Botany) in the college, but after coming into force of Guest Lecturer Policy, 2024, the appointment and service conditions are governed with the policy of 2024, and if the minimum qualification is prescribed for Guest Lecturer, the petitioner has to fulfill the said criteria. Merely because of the reason that she has already worked as Guest Lecturer on previous years, she could not be provided any additional benefit against the policy of 2024. The advertisement has been issued for appointment of Guest Lecturers in the college under the policy of 2024 fixing the minimum qualification 4 for appointment of Guest Lecturers in various subjects, therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available in the petition. 5. Clause 6.5 of the Guest Lecturer Policy, 2024 provides the preference to be given firstly to Ph.D. degree holder and then NET/SET cleared and thereafter M.Phil degree holder, which reads as under:- “6.5 अतिथि व्या ख्या / ग्रंपा ल / क्रीडा अथिका री का वरीया सूची में प्रा तिमेंका क्रीमें तिम् सू री gksxk%& श्रे!णी- 1 सूबंथि तिवषया में पा-एची.डा. श्रे!णी- 2 !ट/सू!ट पारीक्षा उत्तीणी* श्रे!णी- 3 सूबंथि तिवषया में एमें.ति+ल. रीका” 6. The submission of the petitioner that she cannot be replaced with another set of Guest Lecturer is misconceived. If the petitioner is holding the minimum qualification which is prescribed in the policy of 2024, she will not be replaced, but if the candidates having better qualification, than petitioner are there, they cannot be said to be on the same footing and said to be replaced by similar set of Guest Lecturer. The policy of 2024 has been upheld in the matter of “Shrishti Lakra v. State of Chhattisgarh and others” order dated 26.06.2024, passed in WPS No. 5232 of 2023 and in para 17 it has been held that:- “17. In view of the above stated factual and legal position, it is quite vivid that a comprehensive policy has been framed by the State Government with regard to engagement of Guest Lecturer which cannot be said to be prejudicial to any manner to the petitioners.” 7. Fixing the minimum qualification in the advertisement for Guest 5 Lecturer, is based on the minimum qualification fixed in the policy of 2024, which cannot be said to be arbitrary. The State has already made it clear that they have mentioned the minimum qualification and in the event such candidates are not available, the candidates who have already worked there, would be given preference as per their merit list. There can be no dispute that the UGC guidelines are binding and the State is adhering to the same in the light of UGC guidelines, and has framed the policy of 2024 fixing the minimum qualification for Guest Lecturers. 8. As a fall out of the above discussions, this Court does not find any scope for interference in the present writ petition for quashing of the advertisement dated 28.07.2025 with respect to Guest Lecturer (Botany) and to direct the respondent authorities for continuation of the services of the petitioner on the post of Guest Lecturer (Botany). 9. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved