Noor Mohammad v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 7609 OF 2019 • Noor Mohammad, S/o Samiulla Mohammad, aged about 32 years, R/o Masjid Road, Kota, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) ... Petitioner versus 1.

State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (CG) 2.

Additional Director, Directorate of Higher Education Department, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) 3.

Principal, Govt. Lahiri College, Chirmiri, District Koriya (CG) ... Respondents For Petitioner :

Ms. Anuja Sharma, Advocate.

For Respondent-State :

Ms. Ishwari Ghritlahare, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 18/09/2019 1.

The petitioner in the present writ petition is aggrieved by the decision of the State Government, dated 9.10.2018 (Annexure P/1), whereby the State Government as a precautionary measure has directed the concerned Principals of the Government 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 Government appears to be in the light of some directions given by this Court in a couple of writ petitions, the leading of which being Writ Petition (S) No. 4938 of 2018, which came up for hearing before this Court and where this Court had granted interim relief on 31.7.2018. 3.

According to the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had already been granted appointment and by virtue of appointment he is still discharging his duties. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the college in which the petitioner is working and also the subject which the petitioner is teaching, there is no litigation inasmuch as there is no writ petition against the said college as also against the subject in which the petitioner is teaching. It is the further contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 9.10.2018 is only an order passed by the department to avoid a situation of contempt of Court. According to

the counsel for the petitioner, 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 31.7.2018 in the aforementioned 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 petitioner since have not been questioned in any other writ petition and that the petitioner is still by virtue of appointment granted to him continuing in service, his services should not be discontinued.

7.

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) /sharad/ JUDGE