1 2025:CGHC:50752 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5510 of 2023 Lav Kumar Kashyap S/o Dev Kumar Kashyap Aged About 34 Years R/o Dongakohroud, Pamgarh, District Janjgir - Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary School Education Department, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director Public Education Directorate, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - District Education Officer Narayanpur, District Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Saket Pandey, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Judgment on Board 10.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. Saket Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Abhishek Singh, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondents. YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.10.16 15:19:55 +0530 2 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following reliefs :- “10.1. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as Guest Teacher in any government school of district of state of Chhattisgarh. 10.2. That, any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deemed just and fit in facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Brief facts of the case, are that the respondent authorities issued an advertisement inviting applications for the post of State Guest Teacher (Vidya Mitan). The petitioner applied and was duly selected as Vidya Mitan (Chemistry) at Higher Secondary School, Mahimagawadi for the academic session 2016–2017. The petitioner continued to discharge his duties uninterruptedly till the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, after which the school authorities informed him to resume duties upon reopening, though no formal order was passed in that regard. Subsequently, vide order dated 24.06.2019, the respondents again adopted the module of engaging Guest Faculty Teachers till regular appointments were made, followed by an arrangement order dated 02.08.2019 (Annexures P/1 and P/2). Despite several attempts, the petitioner was not permitted to resume his duties, nor was any speaking order issued assigning reasons for the same. Multiple representations submitted by the petitioner went unheeded (Annexure P/3). Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition 3 bearing W.P.(S) No. 461/2022 before this Court. During the pendency of the petition, similarly situated Guest Teachers were allowed to continue, and other identical writ petitions were decided in their favour (Annexure P/4). In the meantime, the District Education Officer, Narayanpur, again issued an advertisement inviting applications for the post of Guest Teacher (Annexure P/5), giving rise to the present cause of action. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the inaction on the part of the respondents in not engaging the petitioner to the post of Guest Teacher is wholly arbitrary and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. It is contended that the petitioner has not been reinstated either in District Narayanpur or in any other district without assigning any reason or justifiable ground. The respondents have not issued any order or communication informing the petitioner about the discontinuation of his services. He further submits that several similarly situated persons have been allowed to continue or reappointed as Guest Teachers in their respective districts or elsewhere, depending on availability, whereas the petitioner alone has been denied such engagement for the past two years, which clearly reflects mala fide intention on the part of the authorities. It is further urged that the petitioner had been continuously serving since the year 2016 without any adverse remark or misconduct recorded against him. Despite his unblemished service record, he has been arbitrarily excluded from 4 employment owing to the respondents’ unjustified acts of omission and commission. 5. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the Division Bench of this Court, in Writ Appeal No. 729/2014 (Gayatri Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh and others), decided on 08.11.2024, has already held that engagement as a Guest Lecturer/Guest Teacher is purely a temporary and stop-gap arrangement made only for one academic session or till regular appointments are made. It is further submitted that in view of the new Policy of 2024, which has been framed in consonance with the UGC guidelines, the State is well within its right to issue fresh advertisements and appoint Guest Teachers possessing higher and better qualifications in the interest of maintaining academic standards. The said policy is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable, and aims to ensure quality education for students. He also contends that it is well-settled that courts cannot interfere with the wisdom or soundness of a government policy, except on limited grounds such as violation of fundamental rights or constitutional provisions. The Policy of 2024, therefore, being in the larger public interest, particularly for the benefit of students, warrants no interference by this Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and have carefully perused the pleadings and documents placed 5 on record. I have also examined the judgment dated 08.11.2024 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.729/2024 (Gayatri Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh and others), wherein the issue pertaining to the engagement of Guest Lecturers/Guest Teachers and the applicability of the State Policy was considered in detail. 7. The Division Bench of this Court while dealing with the similar issue in Gayatri Sharma (supra), relying upon the various pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, has passed the judgment in following terms :- “13. This Court, in Pinky Gupta & Another v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, {WA No. 620/2024, decided on 27.09.2024}, wherein the order dated 26.06.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.8073/2023 and connected matters were disposed of in light of the comprehensive policy 2024 dated 20.06.2024 framed by the State Government (the Higher Education Department) vis-a-vis the engagement of Guest Lecturer(s)/Part Time Lecturer(s), had affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge and it was observed that the appointment of Guest Lecturers for the academic session 2024 shall be made strictly in accordance with the policy of 2024. 14. In essence, the appellant/writ petitioner, amongst other reliefs, seeks a relief that she be permitted to continue as Guest Lecturer at 6 Government Dr. Radhabai Naveen Girls College, District Raipur. 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 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 7 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 having and to that extent, the rights and interest of the appellant/writ petitioner remains secure. 18. As a result, this appeal stands dismissed.” 8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties as well as the authoritative pronouncement of the Division Bench of this Court in Gayatri Sharma (supra), it is evident that the engagement of Guest Teachers/Guest Lecturers is purely a temporary and stop-gap arrangement, made only for one academic session or till regular appointments are made. The petitioner, therefore, cannot claim any vested or enforceable right for continuation or re-engagement on the said post. 9. The State Government, having framed a comprehensive Policy of 2024 in conformity with the UGC guidelines, is well within its power and authority to issue fresh advertisements and to engage 8 Guest Teachers possessing higher and better qualifications in the larger interest of maintaining academic standards and ensuring quality education. The said policy cannot be said to be arbitrary, unreasonable, or violative of any constitutional provision. 10. In the light of the law laid down by the Division Bench and considering the settled legal position that the scope of judicial review in matters of policy decisions is limited, this Court finds no merit in the present writ petition. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh