[Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation] Chh HC | Guest teachers have a legitimate expectation from the ‘State’ to be permitted to continue services until regular appointments are made

Chhattisgarh High Court: Goutam Bhaduri J., allowed the petition by stating that replacing present guest teachers with a new set of appointments is detrimental for students and is in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The facts of the case are such that the petitioner is working as a guest teacher in the school since 2019-2020 however a fresh notification was issued for the appointment of Guest Teachers. Aggrieved by the same, instant petition has been filed to quash the said notification.

Counsel of the petitioners submitted that in the earlier occasion also the dispute arose when the advertisement was made and it was observed by the coordinate bench of this Court in WPS No. 6633 of 2018 on 05-10-2018, that the guest teacher shall not be removed by another set of Guest Teachers. It was further submitted that that now that the academic session is over, the respondents should not be permitted to go in for a fresh recruitment process for filling up of the posts of Guest Teachers for the subject in which the petitioner was taking classes.

The Court relied on judgment Manju Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh WPS No. 4406/2016, decided on 27-02-2017 and observed that

…the Petitioners’ status is that of a Guest Lecturer but that does not mean that they do not have any right. There is always a legitimate expectation of the Petitioners that since the filling up of the posts has not been initiated by way of a regular appointment or by contractual appointments; the Petitioners would be permitted to continue.

The undisputed fact is that the Petitioners were given appointment only on undertaking given by them pursuant to an advertisement by the Respondents. In the undertaking which was made to be furnished by the Petitioners, they were made to undertake that their appointment would be till the posts are filled up by regular/contractual appointment. This by itself clearly gives an indication that unless the Respondents fill up the sanctioned vacant posts by either regular recruitment or by way of contractual appointment, the Petitioners would continue as Guest Lecturers.

 The Court thus held that the Respondents would not be entitled to filling up the posts of Guest Lecturer by replacing the Petitioners unless the Respondents come up with a stand that the services of the Petitioners were dis-satisfactory however not precluding the State Government from going in for filling up of the post by way of a regular appointment or by way of engaging contractual teachers under the rules for contractual employment.

In view of the above, petition stands disposed off.[Akhilesh Kumar Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2020 SCC OnLine Chh 509, decided on 04-11-2020]

Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has put this story together

One comment

  • Yes, very good decision. Hats off to the judge.

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.