LAXMENDRA SONWANI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the petitions have been filed praying for relief to allow the petitioners to perform the duties as Guest Lecturers in various educational institutions until the selection of regular lecturers/teachers.

(2.) It is submitted by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respective petitioners, that the petitioners have given services as Guest Faculty Lecturers in various places, since the past years. Before their appointment as Guest Faculty Lecturer, all the petitioners had cleared the selection process for such appointment. It is submitted that term of the appointment of the petitioners as Guest Lecturer has expired in April, 2022 and the petitioners have apprehension that the respondents authorities shall initiate process for appointment of fresh Guest Lecturers in places of the petitioners. It is submitted that in case of Meeta Dewangan v. State of C.G. and Ors, in W.P.(S) No. 1764 of 2022, decided on 15/3/2022, the similar question was involved, which has been decided in favour of the petitioner. Further the Supreme Court has held in case of State of Haryana v. Piara Singh and Ors., reported in (1992) 4 SCC 118, that an ad hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee, he must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee. The case of the petitioners is same. Hence, it is prayed that appropriate direction be issued to the respondents authorities to accommodate the petitioners as Guest Lecturers in the educational institutions, until the regular appointment is made.

(3.) Learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents opposes the petitions and the submissions made in this respect. It is submitted that the petitioners have filed these petitions only on the basis of apprehension that they may be replaced by some other newly appointed Guest Lecturer, therefore, no cause of action has arisen till date. The petitions filed are premature and are fit to be rejected. Relying on the order of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6144 of 2021 between Roopa Devi Kurrey and Ors. v. State of C.G. and Anr. decided on 12/11/2021, it is submitted that the learned Single Judge has very clearly held that in the similar case, that no cause of action has arisen for filing the petition and further the learned Single Bench has referred the matter to be placed before larger Bench by framing question, as to 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? It is submitted that until this question is decided by the larger Bench, the present petitions are not fit to be considered. Hence, all the petitions may be dismissed.