Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gayatri Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 February, 2024
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Ravi Malimath, Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 6 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 1099 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1. GAYATRI SINGH W/O PAJBAHADUR SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION: ITI GUEST
FACULTY TRADE (ELECTRONICS MECHANIC) ITI
SIDHI DISTRICT SIDHI VILLAGE AND POST
HADBADO NEAR VAN CHAUKI DISTRICT SIDHI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SHIVRAM SAKET S/O BHOLA PRASAD SAKET,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION: ITI GUEST
FACULTY TRADE (MATH/DRAWING) ITI SIDHI
DISTRICT SIDHI R/O VILLAGE AND POST
MAUGANJ DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI R. B. KUSHWAHA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY TECHNICAL EDUCATION AND SKILL
DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAVAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR SKILL DEVELOPMENT
D EPARTM EN T REGIONAL OFFICER BHOPAL
DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE DIRECTOR SKILL DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTM ENT NEAR SAI MANDIR NARMADA
ROAD JABALPUR DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. P R I N C I P A L GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRAINING INSTITUTE (ITI) SIDHI DISTRICT SIDHI
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LORETTA RAJ
Signing time: 2/13/2024
4:52:49 PM
2
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI B.D. SINGH - DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL)
This petition coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Vishal Mishra passed the following:
ORDER
The petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
(i) It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to call entire records, filed of the proceeding for its kind perusal.
(ii) That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ commanding the respondents to give first preference to the petitioners for regular recruitment on the post of Training Officer Grade 3 and until the regular post is not filled up by the petitioners no fresh appointment on the post of Training Officer Grade 3 be made, in the interest of justice.
(iii) That, it is therefore prayed before this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to award 4 bonus marks in each academic session on completion of every academic session and 20 bonus marks for experience of maximum 5 years in regular recruitment should be added/calculated in total obtained marks of Regular Training Officer Grade 3 recruitment.
(iv) That, it is therefore prayed that his Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ commanding the respondents that until regularization of Guest Faculty service of Guest Faculty should not be removed by any condition and equal pay should be provided for equal work till regularization, in the interest of justice.
(v) Any other reliefs which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case including cost of the litigation may kindly be awarded in favour of petitioners.
2. The case of the petitioners is that they are working as Guest Faculty (Mehman Pravakta) since last many years in the Government Industrial Training Institute (ITI). An experience certificate in this regard was also issued to them.
3. Despite the fact that the petitioners are eligible to be appointed on regular post, they have not been permitted to continue on the post of Guest Faculty.
4. Subsequently, they have placed on record an order dated 25.01.2024 and Signature Not Verified Signed by: LORETTA RAJ Signing time: 2/13/2024 4:52:49 PM 3 31.01.2024 whereby their services were put to an end. It is a case where after completion of the 11 months service for which the petitioners were appointed, they have been removed. It is not a case that they have been removed in the mid session.
5. It is argued that the petitioners were was having experience certificate cannot be replaced by another set of Guest Faculty and their candidature may be considered for regular appointment on the post of teacher. Placing reliance upon the interim order dated 22.03.2022 passed in W.P. No. 6159 of 2022 (Pradeep Kumar Yadav and others vs State of Madhya Pradesh and others), learned counsel for the petitioners have prayed that similar relief be extended to the petitioners.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has vehemently opposed the contentions stating that the law with respect to the Guest Faculty has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by the Division Bench of this Court. A detailed order was passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Yadav (supra) wherein has been settled that there cannot be any replacement of Guest Faculty by another set of Guest Faculty. However, in the present case, the petitioners have not been replaced by another Guest Faculty, rather the period for which the petitioners were engaged as a Guest Faculty is over. Hence, no relief can be extended to the petitioners.
7. Subsequently, orders dated 25.01.2024 and 31.01.2024 have been placed on record whereby the services of the petitioners were put to an end. It is a case where after completion of the 11 months service for which the petitioners were appointed they have been removed. It is not a case that they have been removed in the mid session or prior to completion of their contractual period.
8. The law with respect to working of a Guest Faculty is settled by the Signature Not Verified Signed by: LORETTA RAJ Signing time: 2/13/2024 4:52:49 PM 4 Division Bench of this Court in the case of Saurabh Singh Baghel and others vs State of M.P. and others reported in 2019 (1) MPLJ 643 and in the case of Pradeep Kumar Yadav (supra) wherein it has been settled that there cannot be any replacement of Guest Faculty by another set of Guest Faculty. It is not a case of the petitioners that they have been removed in the mid session prior to their contract period, rather it is argued that the petitioners are not being permitted to continue on the post after the academic session is over. Once the period, for which the petitioners were appointed as a Guest Faculty is over, they cannot claim to be continued to work as a Guest Faculty as a matter of right until and unless they are in a position to demonstrate any replacement. Under these circumstances, no relief can be extended to the petitioners. However, the petitioners may always participate in a fresh advertisement, if any, issued by the respondents for the working of Guest Faculty.
9. The writ petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
LR
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LORETTA RAJ
Signing time: 2/13/2024
4:52:49 PM