Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ranveer Singh Jat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 February, 2017
WP-8005-2016
(RANVEER SINGH JAT Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
15-02-2017
Shri G.P. Chaurasia, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Smt. Nidhi Patankar, learned Government Advocate for the
respondents/ State.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is heard finally.
In this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 29/10/2016 & 01/09/2015 by which the directions have been issued in relation to e-attendance for Teachers based on Global Positioning System (GPS).
The grievances of the petitioners is that the impugned direction issued by the respondents is causing grave problem since the petitioners are posted in remote rural areas where mobile network is not easily available and all of them did not have Android mobile phone. By this impugned direction of the respondents, the petitioners are required to purchase Android Mobile Phone for marking their attendance which is a costly affair for low paid employees. The respondents have further directed that in case of non-compliance of the impugned direction, the salary of the concerned teachers shall be deducted. Thus, the petitioners are unnecessarily put to punishment which is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners and contended that this Court has already dismissed the writ petition with regard to e-attendance and as such, the instant petition also needs to be dismissed. It is further contended that in absence of any violation of any statutory provision of law on the part of the respondents and in absence of violation of any constitutional rights guaranteed to the petitioners, no interference can be made in the decision of enforcing e-attendance. It is further contended that W.P.No.7816/2014 and writ appeal No.802/2014 filed before the Indore Bench have been dismissed as is apparent from the order dated 2.12.2016 passed in W.P.No.19388/2016. The principal seat at Jabalpur of this Court has also rejected W.P.No.7816/2014 and W.P.No.19388/2016. In these circumstances, this Court finds no reason to entertain this petition. However, the petitioners will be free to make their representation before the respondents highlighting their actual problem in remote areas regarding connectivity etc. In case, learned counsel for the petitioners submits fresh representation before the Secretary, School Education Department alongwith certified copy of this order within a period of 15 days from today, the same shall be considered and decided by the competent authority by passing reasoned and speaking order separately looking to the individual grievances of the petitioners.
With the aforesaid directions, this petition is dismissed. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.
(S.A. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE Durgekar