Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Sobhagya Singh Shekhawat Ors vs State Of Raj & Ors on 2 November, 2011
Author: Alok Sharma
Bench: Alok Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JUDGMENT S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.11725/2010 (Sobhagya Singh Shekhawat & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) Date of Order: 02/11/2011 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA Mr. D.P. Sharma, for the petitioners.
Mr. Virendra Lodha, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Ganesh Meena, Addl. G.A. for the State.
The petitioners have approached this Court with the prayer that the respondent-State should be directed to consider the case of the petitioners for absorption under the Rajasthan Voluntary Rural Education Service Rules, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 2010').
Mr. D.P. Sharma, counsel for the petitioners submits that the B.L. Senior Secondary School, Bagad, District Jhunjhunu (respondent No.4 in the petition), was receiving grant-in-aid for the last several years, but the respondent-institute passed a resolution dated 05.11.2008 whereby the Managing Committee of the school took a decision that effective 01.04.2008 it would not seek any grant-in-aid from the State Government. Counsel for the petitioners points out that vide letter dated 18.03.2009, the Director, Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner addressed a letter to the Managing Committee of the respondent-institute on the subject matter of its communication of not seeking grant-in-aid effective 01.04.2008 from the State Government and required the Managing Committee to furnish various undertaking primarily with regard to securing the conditions in service, salaries and outstanding of the employees of the school and further that the property of the institute would not be used for any purpose other than for running of the school apart from ensuring that the employees engaged with the institute either as teaching or non-teaching staff would not be removed from the service.
Counsel for the petitioners further submits that no such undertaking was furnished by the respondent-institute and consequently the issue of grant-in-aid not being taken by the institute from the State Government was not resolved. Counsel would submit that there is no specific order by the State Government regarding the fact of stopping of grant-in-aid to the institute-respondent. It has been submitted that under the Rules, 2010, consideration of absorption in government services is sought to be confined only to such teachers who as on the date of notification of the said Rules i.e. 01.02.2011 were working against aided and sanctioned posts at schools receiving grant-in-aid. He submits that a fair and equitable reading of the Rules, 2010 should entail the consideration for absorption under the Rules, 2010 also of teachers who were recruited on posts with reference to which grant-in-aid was being released by the State Government at the time of their recruitment and continued thereafter for several years. The submission is that the absorption under the Rules, 2010 should be open to all teachers who have worked on the posts which has been beneficiary of grant-in-aid for several years.
Mr. Ganesh Meena, counsel for the respondent-State submits that in terms of Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1993'), grant-in-aid is sanctioned to institutes/schools on applications made on a yearly basis. It has been submitted that no application for grant-in-aid having been made by the respondent-Institute commencing financial year 2008-2009, it cannot be anybody's case that the petitioners are working on the posts sanctioned and in respect of which grant-in-aid is being released. The case of the respondent-State is that in terms of Rules, 2010, consideration for absorption can only be in respect of employees as defined in Rule 2(g) of the Rules, 2010 which means an employee working in a recognized non-government aided educational institution and who is working against aided and sanctioned post. It is submitted that both in reference to the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1989'), the Rules therein and the Rajasthan Voluntary Rural Education Service Rules, 2010, the petitioners would have no case for consideration for absorption under the Rules, 2010.
Sections 2(g) and 2(k) of the Rules, 2010, which are relevant for this petition, are reproduced herein :
Section 2(g) : employee means an employee working in a recognized non-government aided educational institution and who is working against aided and sanctioned post.
Section 2(k) : Non-Government Aided Educational Institution means any college, school, training institute or any other institution, by whatever name designated, established and run with the object of imparting education or preparing or training students for obtaining any certificate, degree, diploma or any academic distinction recognized by the State or Central Government or functioning for the education, cultural or physical development of the people in the State and which is neither owned nor managed by the State or Central Government or by any University or Local Authority or Authority owned or controlled by the State or Central Government and which is receiving aid in the form of maintenance grant from the State Government.
Mr. Virendra Lodha, Sr. Advocate appearing for B.L. Senior Secondary School, Bagad, District Jhunjhunu submits that in spite of having taken a decision to discontinue with the grant-in-aid from the State Government effective the academic session 2008-09, the school has continued to protect the service conditions, salaries et al, of all of the employees and in fact even yearly increments are being granted on the salary drawn by the employees of the school including teachers such as petitioners. Counsel submits that in the event the State were to consider the petitioners for absorption under the Rules, 2010 as the petitioners were recruited against the sanctioned post on which grant-in-aid was received for several years, all requisite information desired by the State would be promptly supplied.
The issue in the petition is as to whether the employees recruited on sanctioned posts for which the school received aid from the State Government for several years can be considered under the Rules, 2010 for absorption if subsequently no grant-in-aid was being received for such posts or whether only employees currently working against posts sanctioned and which were receiving grant-in-aid from the Central Government can be considered for such absorption. The case of the petitioners is that they constitute one homogeneous class with employees in the government aided schools working on sanctioned posts funded by grant-in-aid prior to 2008. Subsequently, however, the respondent-Institute appears to have taken a policy decision not to apply and receive grant-in-aid against the sanctioned posts from the State Government. It is submitted that the pre 2008 homogeneous class is sought to be treated differently for the reason of the Management Committee of the petitioner's school resolving not to take grant-in-aid effective 01.04.2008 which was beyond the control of the petitioners and the variation is entailing a non-consideration of the petitioners by the State Government for the absorption under the Rules, 2010. The counsel for the petitioners submits that the words which is receiving aid from the State Government, in Rule 2(k) of the Rules, 2010 and the words who is working against aided and sanctioned posts in schools 2(g) of the Rules, 2010 ought to be interpreted and read liberally in the context of the object of Rules, 2010 also to include institutes and the sanctioned posts therein in respect whereof grant-in-aid was being received in an earlier point of time and subsequently discontinued as in the case of the petitioners for reasons of the decision of the Managing Committee of the institute not to further reply for grant-in-aid under the Act of 1989.
The submissions of the counsel for the petitioners are for an equitable and purposive interpretation of the Rules, 2010 with reference of the object of the Rules.
This is a matter which the State Government ought to consider in the first instance. The petitioners in fact may be justified in submitting that as their school in which they were appointed received grant-in-aid for a long time and more particularly on the sanctioned posts to which they came to be appointed, the State Government ought to consider their case for absorption under the Rules, 2010. I am thus of the view that the petitioners ought to make a detailed representation to the Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner setting out the relevant facts along with a certified copy of this order. On such representation being submitted, the Director Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner shall pass a reasoned order thereon within a period of four weeks of the submission of such representation.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Stay application is also disposed of.
(ALOK SHARMA), J.
MS/