Dr. Rejikum ar K.T. and others v. Mahatma Gandhi University

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 30TH PHALGUNA, 1939** **WP(C).No. 1530 of 2018** **----------------------** **PETITIONER(S): --------------** - **1 DR. REJIKUMAR K.T, GUEST LECTURER INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND POLITICS, SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND POLITICS, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM- 686 560.** - **2 DEEPU P. THOMAS, GUEST LECTURER IN SOCIAL SCIENCES, SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM- 686 560.** - **3 SUDHISH PEARSON, GUEST LECTURER TOURISM STUDIES, SCHOOL OF TOURISM STUDIES, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM- 686 560.** - **4 ABIN K.I., GUEST LECTURER TOURISM STUDIES, SCHOOL OF TOURISM STUDIES, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM- 686 560.** - **5 NISHA SUIDDIQUE, GUEST LECTURER IN ENGLISH, SCHOOL OF LETTERS, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM- 686 560.** - **6 RENGUPTA M, GUEST LECTURER INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND POLITICS, SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND POLITICS, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM- 686 560.** - **7 COLBE DAVIS JOSEPH, GUEST LECTURER IN ENGLISH, SCHOOL OF LETTERS, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM- 686 560.** ## **WP(C).No. 1530 of 2018 (M) --------------------------** - **8 VISHNU PRIAY S, GUEST LECTURER IN MALAYALAM, SCHOOL OF LETTERS, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM- 686 560.** **BY ADVS.SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ KUM.A.ARUNA KUM.THULASI K. RAJ** **RESPONDENT(S):** - **--------------** **1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM- 686 560.** **2. VICE CHANCELLOR,** - **MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM- 686 560.** **3. REGISTRAR,** - **MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM- 686 560.** **4. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (ADMN), MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM- 686 560.** **BY SRI.ASOK M. CHERIAN, SC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.-01-2018, THE COURT ON 21-03-2018 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **mbr/** ## **WP(C).No. 1530 of 2018 (M) --------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:** ## **---------------------** |**EXHIBIT P1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21-10-2013 SHOWING**| |---|---| ||**THE APPOINTMENT OF THE 1ST AND 6TH PETITIONER.**| |**EXHIBIT P2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER SHOWING THE**| ||**APPOINTMENT OF THE 5TH PETITIONER DATED 25-09-2014**| ||**PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS.**| |**EXHIBITP3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28-10-2014 SHOWING**| ||**THE APPOINTMENT OF THE 7TH PETITIONER.**| |**EXHIBIT P4**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01-01-2015 SHOWING**| ||**THE APPOINTMENT OF THE 8TH PETITIONER.**| |**EXHIBIT P5**|**ORDER DATED 30-12-2017 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT**| ||**REGISTRAR FOR THE REGISTRAR.**| |**EXHIBIT P6**|**TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.A5**| ||**(3)/GF/2017/ADMN DATED 09-01-2018.**| |**EXHIBIT P7**<br>|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.2.2018 BY THE**| ||**REGISTRAR, M.G. UNIVERSITY.**| |**EXHIBIT P8**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.2.2018 RESOLVING**| ||**TO APPROVE THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE**| ||**MEETING FOR SELECTION OF ASSISTANT PROFESSOR**| ||**(GUEST FACULTY INTERNAL) (SCHOOL OF COMPUTER SCIENCE).**| |**EXHIBIT P9**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ANOTHER ORDER DATED 15.2.2018**| ||**RESOLVING TO APPROVE THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE**| ||**SELECTION COMMITTEE MEETING FOR SELECTION OF**| ||**ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (GUEST FACULTY INTERNAL)**| ||**(SCHOOL OF LETTERS)**| |**RESPONDENTS'**|**EXHIBITS:**<br>**NIL**| |**---------------------**|| **/TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE** **mbr/ 22.03.2018.** ## **ANU SIVARAMAN, J.** =================== ## **W.P.(C).No. 1530 of 2018** ==================== Dated this the 21[st] day of March, 2018 ## **J U D G M E N T** Petitioners, who are guest lecturers working under the first respondent University have approached this Court challenging Ext.P5 decision of the University and Ext.P6 notification initiating a fresh selection process for appointment of guest lecturers. They seek a declaration that there are not liable to be replaced by another set of adhoc temporary hands or guest lecturers. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that since they are admittedly provisional employees, they cannot be replaced by another set of provisional employees by the University. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in **State of Haryana and others v. Piara Singh** [1992 (4) SCC 118] and **Hargurprathab Singh v. State of** W.P.(C) No.1530 of 2018 2 **Punjab and others** [2007 (13) SCC 292], to contend that one set of provisional employees cannot be replaced by another set of identically placed employees. The decisions of the High Courts of Punjab and Haryana and Gujarat and the High Court of Chattisgarh are also relied on to contend that in similar situations, judgments had been rendered directing the continuance of a set of employees who were appointed after due process of selection. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the University contending that the petitioners are guest lecturers engaged on the basis of the walk in interview to give lecturers on required topics where regular sanctioned posts are either non existent or where appointments of teaches on a regular basis have not been made. It is contended that the concept of engagement of guest lecturers is that they are not treated as teachers of the University either regular or provisional and are engaged only on a purely stop gap basis as contemplated by the UGC Regulations. It is stated that a Division Bench of this Court in **Vasudhara G. v. Dr.Sallas Benjamin and others** [2010 (1) W.P.(C) No.1530 of 2018 3 KLT 533] has specifically held that a Guest Lecturers are not the teachers of the University and that they are not entitled to claim any benefits including regularisation, scale of pay or inclusion in the list of teachers of the University for any purpose. It is contended that the orders engaging the petitioners would clearly show that the engagement as guest faculty is specifically on an hourly remuneration basis without any claim for continuance or regularisation. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that where a law is laid down by the Apex Court, this Court cannot deviate from the ratio of the decisions. The learned counsel relies on the decisions reported in **Suganthi Suresh Kumar v. Jagadeeshan** [2002 (1) SCR 269] in support of the said contention. 6. I have considered the contentions advanced. It is clear from the orders engaging the petitioners that they were engaged as guest lecturers on hourly wage basis on the basis of walk in interview. A perusal of the order engaging the petitioners which are produced as Exts.P1 to P4 makes this aspect clear. It is stated that going by the guidelines issued by W.P.(C) No.1530 of 2018 4 the UGC, qualified persons would be liable to be engaged as guest lectures on hourly wage basis without any claim for regularisation and their engagement is on par with visiting faculty. The engagement of a guest lecturer is not a provisional appointment or contractual appointment, since the engagement is purely on an hourly wage basis. A Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in Reeja K. v. State of Kerala (OP(KAT) No.2546 of 2013) has clearly held that guest lecturer engaged on an hourly wage basis cannot claim equivalent status to that of a provisional employee appointed under Rule 9(a)(1) Part II of the KS & SSR. This Court had occasion to consider the issue and as held that guest lecturers are not even entitled to count the period of work put in by them as such as teaching experience for the purpose of the selection to teaching posts in the University. 7. The decisions of the Apex Court in _Piara Singh (supra)_ which holds that one work charged/casual employee/daily wage employee cannot be replaced by another worker of the same category does not apply in the instant case since the W.P.(C) No.1530 of 2018 5 petitioners are persons engaged as guest lecturers on the the specific understanding that they will be entitled only to hourly wages and that they cannot claim any benefit of continuance, regularisation or even the status of a teacher. 8. The decisions of the Delhi High court referred to in **Abhinav Chaudhary and others v. Delhi Technological University and Another** [2015 SCC online Del.6780] specifically refers to contractual appointments. The decisions of the High Court of Gujarat in **Gohil Rajesh Mansukhabhai** **& Others v. State of Gujarat and others** in Special Civil Application No.695 of 2014 refers to Ahoc appointments of Assistant Professors and lecturers in Government Engineering Colleges. 9. The judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Chattisgarh High Court has been principally relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, in view of the binding bench decisions of this Court, I am not inclined to hold that guest faculty appointed on the terms as in the instant case have any claims to contend that they shall not be W.P.(C) No.1530 of 2018 6 replaced. The petitioners are persons, who are engaged specifically as guest lecturers on an hourly wage basis the very nature of their appointment would preclude any claim for regularisation or for continuance as guest lecturers since the engagement is not even for a specified term. I am of the opinion that in the light of the bench decisions of this Court, the petitioners who are not even considered as provisional employees of the University can have no claim to seek continuance in service and to contend that a further selection for engagement as guest lecturer is vitiated in any manner. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- **ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE** rmm // True copy // P.A. To Judge