1 CGHC010368252024 2026:CGHC:35700 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6847 of 2024 1 - Vinita Sahu D/o Vinod Sahu Aged About 42 Years Posted At Government Engineering College Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Dilip Tamboli S/o Late Devlal Tamboli Aged About 38 Years Posted At Government Engineering College Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Karuna Yadav W/o Ashwini Yadav Aged About 37 Years Posted At Government Engineering College Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Parvin Akhter W/o Faraz Khan Aged About 34 Years Posted At Government Engineering College Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Technical Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Principal At Government Engineering College Raipur, Old Dhamtari Road, Setbahar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Hitesh Bardiya Working As Lecturer (Electronics And SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.08.14 10:56:51 +0530 2 Telecommunication) And Posted At Government Polytechnic College Khairagarh District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan Gandai Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Aakanksha Sahu Working As Lecturer (Electronics And Telecommunication) And Posted At Government Polytechnic College Khairagarh District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan Gandai Chhattisgarh 5 - Smt. Aakanksha Singh Gautam Working As Lecturer (Electronics And Telecommunication) And Posted At Government Girls Polytechnic College Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 6 - Smt. Indulata Sahu Working As Lecturer (Electronics And Telecommunication) And Posted At Minimata Government Girls Polytechnic College Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 7 - Smt. Nisha Jagwani Working As Lecturer (Electronics And Telecommunication) And Posted At Government Polytechnic College Kanker District Kanker Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate alongwith Mr. G.P. Mathur, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Vivek Verma, Govt. Advocate For Respondents No.4 & 7 : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Senior Advocate alongwith Ms. Zainab Mustafa Vanak, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 12.08.2026 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioners seek quashment of the order dated 10.10.2024 (Annexure P/1), whereby their services as 3 Guest Faculty have been discontinued, and the order dated 01.10.2024 (Annexure P/2), whereby the private respondents, working as Lecturers in Government Polytechnic Colleges, have been transferred and posted in their place against the posts of Assistant Professor in Government Engineering College, Raipur. 2. (a) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were initially appointed as Guest Faculty against vacant posts of Assistant Professor in Government Engineering College for the academic session 2024-25 vide order dated 28.06.2024. He submits that as per the terms of their appointment, their services were liable to be discontinued only upon appointment of regular Assistant Professors, whereas the petitioners have been replaced by transferring Lecturers from Government Polytechnic Colleges to the posts held by them. He further contends that such replacement is contrary to the terms and conditions of the petitioners' appointment, particularly when the transferred employees are holding the post of Lecturer in Polytechnic Colleges and are sought to be posted against the post of Assistant Professor in Government Engineering College. (b) Learned counsel further submits that the service conditions and recruitment rules governing the teaching cadre of Government Engineering Colleges and Government Polytechnic Colleges are distinct. Under the Chhattisgarh Technical Education (Teaching Cadre- Engineering College) (Gazetted) Services Recruitment Rules, 2014 (for short, “the Rules of 2014”), the post 4 of Assistant Professor requires the prescribed postgraduate qualification in the relevant branch, whereas the eligibility for the post of Lecturer in Polytechnic College is different. The petitioners possess the requisite M.Tech qualification for the post of Assistant Professor. It is, therefore, submitted that the private respondents, who are Lecturers in Polytechnic Colleges, could not have been transferred and posted against the posts of Assistant Professor in the Engineering College in the purported exercise of rationalization, particularly when no such rationalization policy applicable to the Department of Technical Education has been placed on record or shown to be in existence. It is further submitted that the petitioners could not have been discontinued merely on account of such transfer and posting of the private respondents. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the petitioners and submits that the petitioners were appointed as Guest Faculty on purely ad-hoc basis for the academic session 2024-25. He submits that the private respondents are regular Lecturers of Government Polytechnic Colleges and possess the requisite M.Tech qualification. Since there were no or very few students in the institutions where the private respondents were posted, their services could not be effectively utilized there. Accordingly, in view of the administrative exigencies and the requirement of teaching staff in Government Engineering College, Raipur, the State 5 Government, by exercising the power enumerated under Rule 6(4) of the Rules of 2014, took a decision to utilize their services by posting them at the Engineering College. Learned State counsel further submits that the relevant note-sheet records the aforesaid administrative reasons and the decision was taken pursuant to rationalization of teaching staff. He would contend that the private respondents possess M.Tech qualification and are competent to impart education at the degree level. He would further contend that the petitioners cannot claim any right to continue against the posts merely because they were engaged as Guest Faculty, particularly when regular teachers have been posted in their place. He would further argue that pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioners were continued temporarily, and thereafter the relieving order of the private respondents was cancelled; consequently, the private respondents are presently working at their earlier places. The petitioners No.2 and 4 have also left the engagement during the pendency of the petition. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioners have no enforceable right to seek continuation against a particular post or to question the administrative decision taken by the State Government for utilization of its regular teaching staff. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents No.4 & 7, while opposing the submissions of the petitioners and supported the submissions of the learned State counsel and submits that the petitioners were appointed purely on ad-hoc basis and their 6 appointment order itself specifically provided that such engagement would not create any right in their favour. The contention that the private respondents, being Lecturers in Polytechnic Colleges, are not qualified to be posted in the Engineering College is misconceived. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the applicable rules do not prohibit posting of qualified regular Lecturers of Polytechnic Colleges in Government Engineering Colleges and the petitioners cannot claim a right to continue merely on the basis of their temporary engagement. It is, therefore, submitted that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 6. From the material available on record, it is not in dispute that the petitioners were engaged as Guest Faculty against the vacant posts of Assistant Professor for the academic session 2024-25 on purely ad-hoc/contractual basis. Their engagement did not confer any substantive right to hold the post and was subject to the terms and conditions of the appointment. It is also evident from the record that the State Government, considering the administrative exigencies and availability of teaching staff, took a decision to utilize the services of regular Lecturers posted at institutions where there were no or very few students, by posting them at Government Engineering College, Raipur. The said decision was taken by exercising the power under Rule 6(4) of the Rules of 7 2014. In such circumstances, once regular teaching staff were posted against the posts where the petitioners were engaged as Guest Faculty, the petitioners cannot claim an indefeasible right to continue against such posts merely on the basis of their temporary engagement. 7. The contention of the petitioners that the private respondents, being Lecturers of Government Polytechnic Colleges, were not qualified to be posted in the Government Engineering College also does not merit acceptance. The respondents have placed material on record to demonstrate that they possess the M.Tech qualification and are regular employees of the State Government. No statutory prohibition has been brought to the notice of this Court which completely bars the State Government from utilizing the services of such qualified regular Lecturers in a Government Engineering College. Moreover, the decision to post the private respondents was taken by the competent authority in exercise of the power enshrined under Rule 6(4) of the Rules of 2014 and for administrative exigencies. This Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot substitute its own view for that of the competent authority in such matters unless the decision is shown to be contrary to the statutory provisions, arbitrary or actuated by mala fides, which has not been established in the present case. 8. It is also significant that the petitioners' engagement was only contractual and limited to the period of their appointment, whereas 8 the private respondents are regular employees of the State Government. The subsequent continuation of the petitioners was only in compliance with the interim order passed by this Court and cannot, by itself, create any substantive right in their favour. Thus, the petitioners have failed to establish any enforceable legal right warranting interference with the impugned orders. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no illegality, arbitrariness or perversity in the impugned order dated 10.10.2024 (Annexure P/1) and the order dated 01.10.2024 (Annexure P/2), warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. Resultantly, the present writ petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE $. Bhilwar