Chattisgarh High Court
Gopi Sao & Ors vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors on 18 July, 2016
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
ORDER SHEET
Writ Petition (S) No.2462 of 2014
Gopi Sao & Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
18/07/2016 Shri Kishore Bhaduri and Shri Pawan Kesharwani,
Advocates for the petitioners.
Shri B. Gopa Kumar, Deputy Advocate General for the
State.
Shri Amit Verma, Advocate for respondent No.3.
On 09.05.2016, this court while entertaining the interim application filed on behalf of the petitioners has held as under :
"After hearing learned counsel for the parties and particularly taking into account that the petitioners have been appointed pursuant to the advertisement issued by the authorities and they were selected by the Selection Committee in accordance with Rules of 2002, their petition requires serious consideration and if the posts are being filled up and the petitioners are not regularized on the said post, their interest for regularization would be jeoparadized, therefore, it would be expedient to direct the respondents to keep vacant 27 posts in respective branches in which the petitioners are working as Lectures now designated as Assistant Professors in Government Polytechnic Colleges and Government Engineering Colleges, until further orders."
and the matter was ordered to be listed for final hearing.
However, now IA No.11 has been filed by the petitioners brining notice of the court the subsequent development i.e. an advertisement dated 29.06.2016 whereby, the Principal, Govt. Engineering College, Bilaspur has called for the eligible candidates for interview as Part Time Lecturer in the various branches of the said engineering college.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the only intention of issuing such an advertisement for appointment of Part Time Lecturers is to circumvent the order dated 09.05.2016 whereby this court has ordered for 27 posts to be kept vacant in the respective branches in which the petitioners were discharging their duties as contract Lecturers.
It is further submitted that 27 posts ordered to be kept vacant in the order dated 09.05.2016 were in respect of the present writ petitioners and in case if the respondents act upon the advertisement dated 29.06.2016 and appoint Part Time Lecturers, probably, the petitioners contract would not be renewed and their contract would stand discontinued and would be replaced by the newly appointed Part Time Lecturers which would be much to the detriment of the interest of the petitioners as well as the present writ petition before this court more particularly the order dated 09.05.2016 would get defeated.
Learned counsel for the State submits that order dated 09.05.2016 perhaps is only for keeping 27 posts vacant. He further submits that petitioners have no substantive right to continue on the said post beyond the period of contract entered into between the petitioners and the respondents. Therefore, the advertisement dated 29.06.2016 cannot be construed as action on the part of respondents to circumvent the order dated 09.05.2016.
At this juncture, counsel for the State submits that IA No.11 is confined only to the government engineering college, Bilaspur, to which counsel for the petitioners submits that this is only in respect of one of the district. However, at this juncture, the counsel for the petitioners submits that he has instructions from the petitioners that such advertisement has also been issued by all the other engineering/polytechnic colleges in the State.
Considering the total facts and circumstances of the case more particularly taking note of the manner in which the respondents have acted upon pursuant to order dated 09.05.2016, let the State may file detail reply to IA No.11 within three weeks showing specifically the government's intention to appoint Part Time Lecturers and that it is not to circumvent claim of the petitioners whose contract is coming to an end either today or tomorrow and that the 27 posts which have been ordered to be kept vacant would only be filled up subject to final outcome of this petition.
Meanwhile, it is directed that in case any of the contractual period of the petitioners is coming to an end during the pendency of this petition, the respondents/State shall either renew the contract or else allow him/her to continue to discharge their duties what they have been doing till date by maintaining the status quo with regard to the status of the petitioners till the final outcome of this writ petition.
Certified copy today itself.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy) JUDGE Inder