ROOPA DEVI KURREY Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the Petitioners in the present Writ Petition is that since the Petitioners were working as a Guest Lecturer under Respondent No.3 for the academic session 2020-21 and the academic session is over, the Respondents should not be permitted to replace the Petitioners by another set of contractual Guest Lecturers.

(2.) The contention of the Petitioners is that the Petitioners have undergone a due process of selection for being appointed as a Guest Lecturer and that the services of the Petitioners also were satisfactory as there is no complaint whatsoever, so far as the competency of the Petitioners is concerned. Further contention of the Petitioners is that since the academic session is over, therefore, the Respondents should not be permitted to go in for a fresh recruitment process for filling up of the posts of Guest Lecturers under Respondent No.3 for the subject in which the Petitioners were taking classes. In support, counsel for the Petitioners has placed his reliance upon the decision rendered by this Court on 18.01.2021 in the matter of "Smt. Suchita Tiwari v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others" in WP(S) No.5136 of 2020, which has been delivered based upon the decision passed in WP(S) No.4406 of 2016 on 27.02.2017 in the matter of "Manju Gupta and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others".

(3.) While countering the aforesaid contention of the Petitioners, it is stated by the State counsel that the petition as framed even in absence of occurrence of the cause of action is rather premature in nature and deserves to be dismissed on this count alone. Further contention of him is that the Petitioners' appointment on Guest Lecturer was only for the academic session for the year 2020-21 and no action was taken for their removal during the course of the said academic session. The Petitioners have, therefore, no right whatsoever to claim as such. It is contended further that the observation made in Manju Gupta's case (supra) based upon which the said decision in the matter of Smt. Suchita Tiwari (supra) was delivered, was, however, on different footing, therefore, no reliance could be made on it. In support, the reliance has been placed upon the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the matters of Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and another and Alchemist Ltd. and another v. State Bank of Sikkim and Others reported in (2004) 6 SCC 254 and (2007) 11 SCC 335 respectively.