Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 671 (MP)

Pradeep Kumar Yadav v. State of M. P.

2022-04-26

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, RAVI MALIMATH

body2022
ORDER 1. Since the subject matter involved in all these writ petitions is almost similar, they are taken up for consideration together. 2. The writ petitioners are all Guest Faculty Teachers in Engineering and Polytechnic Colleges. They have all been engaged as Lecturers/Professors to teach the students in the concerned colleges. They are not in permanent employment. They are appointed as Guest Faculty Teachers for a period of 11 months, discontinued thereafter and subsequently have to once again apply to be appointed as a Guest Faculty. They are paid on an hourly basis. They are given approximately 17 hours of teaching per week. Various other conditions exist in the Directives dated 27.1.2022. Their grievance is that they have been appointed continuously only for 11 months period and after which their employment becomes doubtful. They are also aggrieved by the clause in the directives that they have to undergo a fitness test every year. Various other clauses affect them. 3. However, the learned Government Advocate submits that the policy was earlier in existence to the same effect ever since the year 2004. There has been no grievance. That no case has been made out by any of the writ petitioners as to the discontinuance of any Guest Faculty. He further contends that the test of the Guest Faculty Teachers is only for the purposes to ensure that they conform to the eligibility as enunciated by the AICTE. That there is no qualitative test that is done every year in order to recruit them. However, he submits that in cases where the Guest Faculty Teachers are found to be unfit or for any other reason, disentitling them to teach in the classes, it is only those persons who are removed from service. For all other Guest Faculties, it is only the eligibility that is seen. 4. Heard learned counsels. 5. Various interim orders were passed in these petitions. In some petitions, the interim order was to the effect that the petitioners should not be terminated from service and shall continue until and unless a fresh appointment is made. In certain other cases, an interim order was passed to the effect that until and unless regular appointment is made, till then the petitioners shall continue. In some petitions, the interim order was to the effect that the petitioners should not be terminated from service and shall continue until and unless a fresh appointment is made. In certain other cases, an interim order was passed to the effect that until and unless regular appointment is made, till then the petitioners shall continue. However, since all these petitions are taken up for consideration together, we deem it just and appropriate that the petitioners receive an appropriate order which will cover the entire issue at large. 6. Primarily, we do not find any advantage with the Government for imposing these kind of conditions. Even otherwise, the learned Government Advocate submits that this is not a test in the sense as contended by the petitioners. It is only intended for ensuring that they conform to the eligibility as prescribed by the AICTE. So far as this is concerned, the initial appointment of the Guest Faculty has already been made based on the eligibility criteria as prescribed by the AICTE. Therefore, once they are found fit for employment, we do not find any necessity for the petitioners to go through the very same documentation every time a fresh appointment has to be made. A one time test of eligibility would appear to satisfy the interest of the State. 7. So far as removing the teachers who are found unfit to teach is concerned, the right of the State is always retained to that extent. A teacher who does not perform his duties properly, cannot be allowed to continue in service. Therefore, that clause in the agreement entitling them to discontinue in the Guest Faculty for reasons of incompetence cannot be interfered with by this Court. 7. Since the learned Government Advocate submits that at present there does not seem to be a proposal by the Government to go in for regular appointment, it is only just and necessary that the petitioners continue as Guest Faculty Teachers until and unless regular appointments are made. However, the terms and conditions as applicable to the Guest Faculty Teachers will continue to remain unaffected. 8. However, the terms and conditions as applicable to the Guest Faculty Teachers will continue to remain unaffected. 8. The further submission of the learned Government Advocate that they require to balance the Lecturers in view of the requirement of such a Lecturer, is also left to the discretion of the State based on the availability and necessity of such students which would mean that in case there are few or no students in a particular stream, the State is entitled not to continue a Guest Faculty for that particular stream for that particular college. If, however, in a particular stream, there are more number of students or in a particular college, more Guest Faculty Teachers are required, the State is always at liberty to call for fresh appointment for the said purpose. 9. The aforesaid observations would take care of the interests of the petitioners as well as the State. 10.These writ petitions are disposed off with the aforesaid directions. Either parties are at liberty to move this Court for seeking modification of the order, if found necessary.