Blog

What cannot be lost sight of the fact is that the law is well-settled that an ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee and that the position of Guest Teachers is akin to an ad hoc employee as upheld by the High Court of Chhattisgarh through the learned bench led by  Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal in the case of  State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. v. Akhilesh Kumar Mishra  and Ors.(Writ Appeal No.322 of 2019).

The brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioners approached this Court assailing an advertisement dated 21.09.2020 inviting applications for recruitment of Guest Teachers in respect of 71 Eklavya Adarsh Awasi School. Case of the writ petitioners was that after undergoing a due process of selection for being appointed as Guest Teachers, they were selected as Guest Teachers for the academic session 2019-20 and that their performance was also satisfactory. In the background of aforesaid factual matrix, it was contended that inviting applications for Guest Teachers for the subsequent year for the very same subjects which the petitioners were teaching was contrary to the decision of Hon’ble Surpeme Court in State of Haryana & Others v. Piara Singh and Others reported in (1992) 4 SCC 118.

 Mr. Siddharth Dubey, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment was delivered by the learned Single Judge without affording an opportunity to the State to rebut the contention and therefore, the order is liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.

Shri Swajit Singh, learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners, on the other hand, submits that the learned Single Judge relied on an established proposition of law and therefore, even if any opportunity was granted, the same would not have enured to the benefit of the appellants. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the appellants, he submits.

After the perusal of the facts and arguments, the Hon’ble Court held, “The order of appointment of the writ petitioners had a clause mentioning that the appointment so made are till an alternative arrangement is made by way of regular recruitment/contractual/transfer. It is not pleaded in the writ appeal that there are any complaints against the writ petitioners or that their service was otherwise not satisfactory. Therefore, in our considered opinion, even though the appellants were not given an opportunity of contesting the writ petition, under the facts and circumstances of the case, according to our perception, no prejudice was caused to the appellants. In that view of the matter, we see no good ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge and accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit, is dismissed. No costs.”

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by Vandana Ragwani