MANISH GUPTA & ANR. ETC. ETC. vs VERSUS PRESIDENT, JAN BHAGIDARI SAMITI & ORS. ETC. ETC.
MANISH GUPTA & ANR. ETC. ETC. vs VERSUS PRESIDENT, JAN BHAGIDARI SAMITI & ORS. ETC. ETC.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.30843088 OF 2022
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.12946
12950 of 2017]
MANISH GUPTA & ANR. ETC. ETC. ...APPELLANT(S)
PRESIDENT, JAN BHAGIDARI SAMITI
& ORS. ETC. ETC. ...RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeals challenge the common judgment and
order dated 8th February, 2017, passed by the Division Bench of
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench, in Writ
Appeal No. 386 of 2016 along with companion matters, thereby
allowing the appeals filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh as
well as the Jan Bhagidari Samiti and setting aside the common
judgment and order dated 29th September, 2016 passed by the
learned single judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh,
Gwalior Bench in Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 4716 of 2016, 5326
of 2016 and 5145 of 2016.
3. The facts in the present case are taken from Writ Petition
(Civil) No.4716 of 2016.
4. The State Government of Madhya Pradesh, vide
Notification dated 30th September, 1996, started a Scheme
known as “Jan Bhagidari Scheme” (hereinafter referred to as
“the said Scheme”). As per the said Scheme, the Government
had decided that the local management of the Government
Colleges was to be handed over to a Committee so as to ensure
public participation in the Government Colleges. Under the
said Scheme, the said Committees were to be constituted
having members from various fields. The Chairman of the said
Committee was to be appointed by the State Government from
the members of the concerned Civic Body, District Panchayat,
Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) or Member of Parliament
(MP). The District Collectors or their representative were to be
the exofficio Deputy Chairman of the General Council of the
said Committee. The representatives of the donors, farmers,
and the representative of benefitting schools were to be the
members of the said Committee. The said Committee was
known as Jan Bhagidari Samiti.
5. Vide the Government Circular/Order dated 5th October,
2001, the State Government decided to start some courses on a
selffinancing basis. For the said courses, the appointments
were to be made on contractual/tenure basis and the
honorarium of the teachers and other staff was to be decided by
the said Committee.
6. In pursuance to the said Scheme, an advertisement came
to be issued in the year 2014 for appointment of teachers as
guest faculty for the Academic Year 20142015 in different
Colleges. The writ petitioners in Writ Petition (Civil) No.4716 of
2016, having requisite qualifications, applied to the advertised
positions in pursuance to the said advertisement. Upon their
selection by the duly constituted Committee, they were
appointed. After the end of the Academic year, the writ
petitioners were discontinued from service. Fresh
advertisements were issued for the next Academic Year 2015
2016. Being aggrieved thereby, the writ petitioners approached
the High Court by way of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4716 of 2016.
The said writ petition was allowed by the learned single judge of
the High Court vide judgment and order dated 29th September,
2016, thereby directing that the writ petitioners therein would
continue to work on their respective posts till regular selections
were made. It was also directed that the writ petitioners
therein were entitled to get the salary in accordance with the
UGC circular issued in February, 2010.
7. Being aggrieved thereby, the State Government as well as
the Presidents of the Jan Bhagidari Samitis preferred appeals
before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division
Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment and order
dated 8th February, 2017, allowed the writ appeals and set
aside the judgment and order passed by the learned single
judge of the High Court. Being aggrieved thereby, the present
appeals by way of special leave.
8. We have heard the Shri Rana Mukherjee, learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Shri K.M.
Nataraj, learned Additional Solicitor General (“ASG” for short)
appearing on behalf of the respondents.
9. Shri Rana Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel, would
submit that the Division Bench of the High Court has erred in
interfering with the judgment and order passed by the learned
single judge. He submits that, as a matter of fact, the
appellants were duly qualified and were selected in accordance
with due selection process and were required to undergo the
selection process in every Academic Year. He submits that the
modus operandi of the Government Colleges was to engage the
services of the appellants at the beginning of the Academic
Session and to discontinue them at the end of the Academic
Session; and again to issue fresh advertisements for the next
Academic Session. In response to the same, the candidates
were again required to follow the selection process to get
appointed. It is therefore submitted that though there was
sufficient workload for regular posts, the appellants were
deprived of regular employment. It is submitted that, in any
case, the appellants had not sought for regularization. The
relief claimed was only for continuation of their services till duly
selected candidates were appointed. He therefore submits that
the impugned judgment and order delivered by the Division
Bench of the High Court deserves to be set aside.
10. Shri K.M. Nataraj, learned ASG, on the contrary, would
submit that the appellants were appointed in accordance with
the said Scheme. It is submitted that under the said Scheme,
the Government Colleges were required to run various courses
on a selffinancing basis. The expenditure for the same was to
be meted out from the tuition fees, received from the students.
He submits that the appointments of appellants were neither
ad hoc nor temporary. It is submitted that their services were
as guest lecturers and were on contractual basis for 11 months.
11. Shri Nataraj further submits that the requirement of the
guest lecturers was from year to year on the basis of the
number of students available for particular course(s). He
further submits that the said Scheme itself provided for
appointment of lecturers on a guest faculty basis and as such,
since the appellants had chosen not to challenge the said
Scheme, the Division Bench had rightly allowed the writ
appeals and dismissed the writ petitions.
12. A perusal of the advertisement dated 24th June, 2016
issued by the Principal, Government Kamla Raja Girls Post
Graduate Autonomous College, Gwalior, which is at Annexure
P2 of the Appeal Paper Book and the advertisement dated 2nd
July, 2016 issued by the Principal, SMS Government Model
Science College, Gwalior, M.P., which is at Annexure P3 of the
Appeal Paper Book, would show that the appointments were to
be made after the candidates had gone through due selection
procedure. Though Shri Nataraj, learned ASG has strenuously
urged that the appointments of the appellants were as guest
lecturers and not as ad hoc employees, from the nature of the
advertisements, it could clearly be seen that the appellants
were appointed on ad hoc basis. It is a settled principle of law
that an ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc
employee and he can be replaced only by another candidate
who is regularly appointed by following a regular procedure
prescribed. Reliance in this respect can be placed on the
judgment of this Court in the case of Rattan Lal and others
vs. State of Haryana and others1 and on the order of this
Court in the case of Hargurpratap Singh vs. State of Punjab
13. In that view of the matter, we do not find that an error was
committed by the learned single judge of the High Court by
directing the writ petitioners to continue to work on their
1 (1985) 4 SCC 43
2 (2007) 13 SCC 292
respective posts till regular selections are made. We, however,
find that the direction issued by the learned single judge of the
High Court that the writ petitioners would be entitled to get the
salary in accordance with the UGC circular is not sustainable.
The advertisements themselves clearly provided that the
selected candidates would be paid the honorarium to be
determined by the said Committee.
14. We are informed at the Bar that the appellants are being
paid on a per hour basis, i.e., at the rate of Rs.1,000/ per hour
and they are continuing to work in pursuance of the order of
status quo passed by this Court on 28th April, 2017. We also
find substance with the submission made on behalf of the
respondent – State that continuation of the appellants would
depend on the number of students offering themselves for the
15. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to partly allow
the present appeals.
16. Accordingly, we pass the following order:
A. The appeals are partly allowed.
B. The impugned judgment and order dated 8th February,
2017 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench in Writ Appeal No.386
of 2016 along with companion matters is quashed and
C. The judgment and order dated 29th September, 2016
passed by learned single judge of the High Court is
modified as under:
(i) The writ petitioners appellants herein would be
entitled to continue on their respective posts till
they are replaced by regularly selected candidates;
(ii) The writ petitioners appellants herein would be
continued on their respective posts provided that a
sufficient number of students are available for the
particular course(s) for which the writ petitioners –
appellants herein are appointed.
(iii) The writ petitioners – appellants herein would be
entitled to honorarium at the rate of Rs.1,000/
per hour as is being paid to them presently.
17. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]
APRIL 21, 2022.