Yogendra Singh v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.1986 OF 2019
1. Yogendra Singh S/o Brijpal Singh, Aged About 31 Years R/o House No. 111, Thakur Ghera Shankar, Mandir Gali, Abdul Kalam Ward No. 40, Hatkachora, Jagdalpur District Bastar, Chhattisgarh.
2. Gaur Mridha S/o Gobindha Mridha, Aged About 29 Years R/o C/o A.K. Biswas, Behind F C I Godown, Maharani Ward, Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
3. Rajkumar S/o Shri Bhushan Lal Verma, Aged About 26 Years R/o Ward No. 1, Gali No. 1, Village - Kanhar Dabri, Post - Dhangaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
4. Ku. Moksha Dewangan D/o Shri Santosh Kumar Dewangan, Aged About 24 Years R/o Sun - City, Lalbagh House No. 227, Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh
5. Prashant Kumar Baghel S/o Shri Vijay Baghel Aged About 33 Years R/o House No. 218, 6 Kondavalpara,village Kalipur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
6. Brijesh Kumar Goutam S/o Midhari Ram Aged About 28 Years R/o Gurughasidas Ward Kumharpara, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
7. Shabana Begum D/o Harun Rafiq Khan, Aged About 30 Years R/o Danteshwawri College, Chowk , Sunil Cen John Gali, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
8. Taruna Sahu D/o R.D. Sahu, Aged About 24 Years R/o Vrindavan Colony, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh.
9. Smt. Arpana Singh W/o Shri Rahul Singh, Aged About 27 Years R/o Rajwada, Rajmahal Parisar, Subhash Chandra Ward No. 9, Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 10.Nivedita Mukherjee W/o S.S. Mukherjee, Aged About 45 Years R/o 54/gh Ward No. 15, Nayapara, Jagdalpur District Bastar, Chhattisgarh.
...Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Mantralaya, Indravati Bhawan New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. The Commissioner, Higher Education, Block - 3, Second And Third Floor, Indrawati Bhawan New Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3. The Principal, Government Kaktiya Postgraduate College, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
4. The Principal, Government Danteshwari Postgraduate Girls College, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh.
5. The Principal, Govt. Naveen College, Tokapal, District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners :
Shri Vipin Singh, Advocate.
For Respondent-State :
Shri Saleem Kazi, Dy. Advocate General.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 19.03.2019
1. The petitioners in the present writ petition is aggrieved by the decision of the State Govt. dated 09.10.2018 Annexure P-1 whereby the State Govt., as a precautionary measure, has directed the concerned Principals of the Govt. Colleges not to appoint any Guest Faulty in respect of those subjects where in previous years the arrangement was being made by way of Guest Faculty.
2. The instruction so issued by the State Govt. appears to be in the light of some directions given by this Court in a couple of writ petitions, the leading of which being WPS No. 4938 of 2018 and other analogous matters which came up for hearing before this Court and where this Court had granted interim relief on 31.07.2018.
3. According to the petitioners, they had already been granted appointment and by virtue of appointment, he is still discharging his duties. Contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that the college in which the petitioners are working and also the subject which the petitioners are teaching, there is no litigation in as much as there is no writ petition against the said college and also against the subject in which the petitioners are teaching. It is the further contention of the petitioners that the order Annexure P-1 dated 09.10.2018 is only an order passed by the department to avoid a situation of contempt of Court. According to the petitioners, the contempt of Court would arise only in the event of there being a specific direction or a writ issued against a particular college or against a particular subject which in the instant case does not exist.
4. This fact is not disputed by the State counsel.
5. Given the said facts and also taking note of the directions given by this Court vide order dated 31.07.2018 in the bunch of writ petitions, it is evidently clear that this Court had granted interim protection to only those specific petitioners who had approached the High Court and the interim protection also was confined to the subject against which each of the petitioners were working. This Court in the subsequent series of litigation of similar nature had specifically mentioned that the recruitment process, if any, would be permitted to be continued except for filling up those posts where there is a claim by the previous academic sessions' guest faculties and the said interim order would come into force only in the event of the
posts are lying vacant and it has not been filled up before the interim orders were passed by this Court.
6. Given the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the opinion that the services of the petitioners since have not been questioned in any other writ petition and that the petitioners are still by virtue of appointment granted to them continuing in service, their services should not be discontinued.
7. So far as the claim of the petitioners for remuneration as per the UGC regulations is concerned, let petitioners prefer an appropriate representation to the appointing authority in this regard who in turn shall take appropriate decision in accordance with the rules, guidelines and regulations governing the field, within an outer limit of 90 days from the date of receipt of the representation.
8. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge inder