1 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 : SMT NIRMALA RAO 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 4 the 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 6 Graduate 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