AARTI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that she was working in the respondent's department as Guest Faculty having a long experience. It is submitted that she was working since last more than 8 years as Guest Faculty with utmost honesty and sincerity. It is further submitted that she is working in the respondent college since 2016-17 and her appointment is through the selection process, which is legal and valid. She was continuously teaching but the respondents No.1 and 2 advertised the post of petitioner. Therefore, aggrieved by the action of the official respondents, petitioner filed a petition being Writ Petition No.5934 of 2017 and this Hon'ble Court vide order dtd. 13/9/2017 has categorically held that the guest faculty cannot be replaced by another guest faculty or until regular appointments are made. The respondent department issued the guidelines on 17/12/2019 for the guest faculties working against the post of Assistant Professor. The respondent fallen out the petitioner due to transfer against the order dtd. 13/9/2017. The official respondent had issued an order dtd. 25/2/2022 whereby clause 2.3 of the policy dtd. 17/12/2019 has been amended. The respondent No.4 had been first time appointed as guest faculty on 23/4/2022 at Government College Alot District Ratnam and thereafter she was relocated at the Holkar Science College, Indore vide order dtd. 2/9/2022. It is her case that on 7/10/2022, the official respondents transferred Dr. Swagata Gupta, Assistant Professor (Chemistry) to the Government Holkar Science College, Indore and respondent No.3 issued a letter No.111/22 dtd. 10/10/2022 by which the petitioner came to know that the petitioner has been declared as fallen out in place of respondent No.4, which is contrary to the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Yadav and Others Vs. M.P State and Others (Writ Petition No.6159 of 2022) and other connected matters vide order dtd. 26/4/2022 as well as in the case of Saurabh Singh Baghel and others Vs. State of M.P and others reported in 2019 (1) MPLJ 643, whereby it is categorically held that the guest faculty cannot be replaced by another guest faculty or until regular appointments are made. The petitioner has prayed that the similar relief may be extended to her. Therefore, the petition was filed.

(3.) Counsel for the respondent/State has objected to the averments of the writ petition pointing out the fact that the appointment of the petitioner was contractual in nature for a limited period. It is nowhere mentioned in the writ petition that the petitioner has been replaced by another guest faculty. In absence of any averment with respect to replacement of the petitioner with an other guest faculty, no interim protection can be granted to the petitioner because the appointment of the petitioner was contractual in nature. The judgement passed by this Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Yadav (supra) is also to the extent that in case the petitioner has worked in the previous session and is being replaced by another set of contractual employee. The employer is having all rights to remove a contractual employee like petitioner on completion of her contract period considering the strength of students and requirement of work. But, in absence of any cogent explanation or justification regarding replacement of the petitioner, no relief can be extended. He has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.