Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
M Buvaneswary vs Ut Of Pondicherry on 7 November, 2023
2 1 MA 265/2023 & OA 318/2018 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH MA/310/00265/2023 in & 0A/310/00318/2018 | Dated Tuesday the 7 day of November Two Thousand Twenty Three M.Buvaneswary, S.Prabarany, M.Umamaheswari, RJamathu, V. Veeraragavan, A.Arul Boopathy, S.Sathiyaraj, E. Vijayakumar, 9. Ponni, 10. K. Baby, 11, E.Hemapraba, 12, D.Sageetha, 13. T.Sabarinathan, 14, A.Sivagami, 15, S.Saraniya, 16. S.Sheelamary, 17. D.Sabarmathy, 18. R.Sridevi. .... Applicants PNA A wh ow By Advocate M/s. Usha Ramman Vs 1.The Union Territory of Puducherry, Rep by Chief Secretary cum the Chairman, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Government of Puducherry, Puducherry 605005. 2.The Union Territory of Puducherry, Rep by Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government of Puducherry, Chief Secretariat, Stes 2 MA 2653/2023 & OA 318/2018 Puducherry 605005, 3.The Director of School Education, Government of Puducherry, Perunthalaivar Kamaraj Centenary Education Complex, 100 Feet Road, Anna Nagar, Nellithope, Puducherry 605005. 4.The State Project Director, State Project Office, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Education Department, . Perunthalaivar Kamaraj Centenary Education Complex, Nellithope, Puducherry 605005. By Advocate Mr. R. Syed Mustafa ....Respondents 3 MA 265/2023 & OA 318/2018 ORAL ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Ms, Lata Baswaraj Patne, Member(J)) By this OA, the applicants prayed the following relief :-
"To call for the records relating to the Proceedings No. 2604/SSA/Court Case/2016 dated 30.12.2016 passed by the 4" respondent and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to provide appointment to the applicants under the respondents, treat the period from 30.12.2016 till date of order as having been in service with all attendant benefits and continuity of service and pass such further order or other orders and thus render justice,"
2. The brief facts of the case are as under:-
i. The applicants submit that the Government of Puducherry had formulated a Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan for the purpose to engage Computer Lab Coordinators under the State Project Director, Directorate of School Education, Education Department, Government of | Puducherry. The applicants/Computer Lab Co- Ordinators had been engaged from 2005-06 onwards in Government Schools of Puducherry, Karaikal, Mahe and Yanam regions. All the applicants were continuously working as Computer Lab Coordinators and most of the applicants have put up 6 % years of long and lengthy period of continuous service and discharged their duties.
ii. As per the respondents' statement, there had been no allotment of funds from 2013-14 onwards by the Project Approval Board (PAB) towards the payment of honorarium to Computer Lab Co-Ordinators, under the intervention of computer Aided Education in the schools, Respondents further stated as in consequence of stoppage of funds, the necessity to engage Computer Lab Co-Ordinators ceased to 4 MA 265/2023 & OA 318/2018 exist during 2013-14 itself as their engagement was purely adhoc arrangement for a particular time bound scheme.
iti. The applicants respectfully submit that, similarly placed Instructors under the Government Higher Secondary School, Government of Puducherry who were worked on hourly basis have been selected and appointed by the school level committee and subsequently they have been regularized as Instructors under the 3rd Respondent herein. The respondents did not consider the applicants' grievance and they were constrained to file OAs before this Tribunal. In the said OAs, the Tribunal passed an order as "regarding the apprehension raised by the learned counsel for the applicant that the respondent might disengage the applicant and engage freshers on contract basis or on outsourcing basis, we would point out that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs Piara Singh, (1992) 4 SCC 118 and more specifically Para 46, which is extracted hereunder:
"Secondly, an adhoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another adhoc or temporary employee; he must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee. This is necessary to avoid arbitrary action on the part of the appointing authority". The respondents cannot do so. With these observations, the OAs are disposed of."
iv. The applicants submit that vide letter, dated 30.12.2016, the State Project Director, Puducherry had issued an order directing the respondents to pass necessary resolution and disengage the Computer Lab Coordinators concerned 5 MA 2653/2023 & OA 318/2018 from their schools w.e.f the afternoon of 30.12.2016 and send a copy of the resolution to the undersigned, on or before 02.01.2017. The copy signed on 30.12.2016. On the same day ie., 30.12.2016, the State Project Director, Puducherry had issued another order even without receiving the resolution from the concerned schools/departments and passed an impugned order stating that the applicants are not entitled to continue their engagement in the respective schools with effect from the date of issue of the order.
Vv. The applicants submit that the Director of School Education submitted his report only on 19.01.2017 to the effect that "it may be noted that the Computer Lab
- Co-Ordinators have to be disengaged as there is no funding support from SSA, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India". Without receiving the report or resolution from the concerned schools and department of Education, the State Project Director passed the impugned order that the applicants are not entitled to continue their engagement in the respective schools with effect from the date of issue of the order. The State Project Director, Education Department passed the impugned order without following basic principles.
Agerieved, the applicants have filed this OA.
3. After notice, the respondents have appeared through their counsel and filed detailed reply opposing the relief prayed in the OA as well as in the MA filed for interim direction on the ground that in the earlier round of litigation when their services have been disengaged, they have approached this Tribunal in OA Nos.
6 MA 2635/2023 & OA 318/2018cy) 534/2013 and batch cases. While considering the issue, this Tribunal has considered whether the applicants could be regularised and observed thus,
5. The trite proposition of law is that the applicants who are claiming to be working under the Sarvd Siksha Abiyan Scheme, cannot seek for Regularization because there are no permanent posts in the said scheme and there are no Recruitment Rules also. However, the applicants, who have put in more than, as clalmed by them, ten years of service under the Sarva Siksha Abiyan if they apply along with other candidates in response to any employment notification for sultable posts or similar posts in the Puducherry Administration, then Puducherry Administration, as put forth by the learned counsel for the respondents, would consider it on merits. Regarding their age relaxation is concermed, it is for the applicants to apply for the same and that would be considered as per the governing rules.
6. The learned counsel for the applicant, placing reliance on the G.O.Ms.No.82 dated 04.09.2012 would insist that 44 teaching staff working in Sarva Siksha Abiyan were regularized and they were still working in the Union Territory of Puducherry occupying regular posts, for which the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that that was a one time measure In view of the vatious litigations and that they were regularized and that too they participated along with other recruits in the regular selection process and they were given such regularization, and that age relaxation was also given for some of the candidates. Hence, at this stage, we would like to fumigate our mind with the well settled proposition of law if a regular post is vacant then certainly Government is enjoined to announce it and make effective publication so as to enable the eligible candidates to apply for the same and straight away no regular posts could be filled up without adhering to the procedures contemplated under the Recruitment Rules. As such, we are having no hesitation in holding that the applicants are entitled to apply along with others for similar posts or any posts in the education department whereupon they are also given liberty to apply for age telaxation and all those applications have to be considered by the appropriate authority as per law.
8. Regarding the apprehension raised by the learned counsel for the applicant that the respondents might disengage the applicants and engage freshers on coniract basis or on outsourcing basis, we would point out that as correctly pointed out by the learned counsel.for.the applicant that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of State of Haryana vs Piara Singh, (1992) 4 SCC 118 and more specially Para 46 which is extracted hereunder:
7 MA 265/2023 & OA 318/2018"Secondly, an adhoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another adhoc or temporary employee; he must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee. This is necessary to avoid arbitrary action on the part of the appointing authority", the respondents cannot do so. With these observations, the OAs are disposed of. With regard to the grievance of the applicant that for the -services rendered by the applicants, pay was not paid for certain period, we would like to point out that is a trite proposition that for the work performed by the applicants, necessarily the respondent should pay for that, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The ratiocination adhered to above is applicable to dispose of the OA No.156/2013 also.
9. The OAs are disposed of accordingly. Consequently, MA Nos. 724-726/2013 filed for vacating the stay, are also closed."
Against the representations submitted by the applicants, detailed order has been passed by the authorities on 30.12.2016. The applicants have been paid their unpaid honorarium way back in the year 2012. The applicants' services were disengaged. The applicants do not have any cause of action to challenge the new notification by way of an MA. At the most, the applicants can be permitted to participate in the said selection process and their claim will be considered in accordance with the direction of this Tribunal. As such, the applicants are not entitled for the relief prayed in the OA and the OA deserves to be dismissed. 4, Heard both sides and perused the records.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India has decided to impart school education holistically without segmentation from pre-nursery to class 12. In this regard, three centrally sponsored schemes viz., Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan and Teacher Education have been subsumed into an 8 MA 2653/2023 & OA 318/2018 integrated scheme for school education called "'Samapra Shiksha!, It is an overarching programme for the school education from pre-school to class 12, which has been implemented with the broader goal of improved effectiveness measured in terms of equal opportunities for schooling and equitable learning schemes in all the States/UTs from the year 2018-19. Therefore, the main thrust of the argument of learned counsel for applicants is that the scheme is to be continued.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants on the ground that the applicants' services were not required and therefore, after the direction of this Tribunal, file has been forwarded to the competent authority of school education. After receipt of note, dt. 19.01.2017, the applicants' cases have been considered.
The said note reads as under, "30. The notings from para 21 to 29/nf may please be referred The Computer Lab Co-ordinators were engaged by SMC of the schools to take care of the computer labs and systems, set up in the schools under the 'Computer Aided Learning' (CAL) programme of SSA. The SMCs of the schools had engaged candidates who are having degree/diploma in computer science/computer application. As funding support under CAL programme from 2013-14 was stopped, it was proposed to disengage them, Further, due to direction of the Hon'ble CAT to maintain 'Status Quo', they were continued to be engaged. Since the CAT has disposed of the original petition for vacating the 'Status Quo', the Computer Lab Co- ordinators have to be disengaged as they are not required at schools. Since they have been engaged through SMC, an order was issued to the SMC to pass a resolution and terminate the engagement of Computer Lab Co-ordinators and this issue was appraised to the Hon'ble Education Minister. He had directed to submit a detailed report on file, Therefore, the file may be submitted to the Hon'ble Minister for Education, It may be noted that the Computer Lab Co-ordinators have to be disengaged as there is no funding support from SSA, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India."
9 ~ MA 265/2023 & OA 318/20187, The applicants' cases have been considered and speaking orders have been issued since the Computer Co-ordinators have been disengaged as they are not required at school level as well as there is no funding support from the SSA, Ministry of Human Resource Development. In respect of the applicants' unpaid honorarium, the same has been fully paid. Moreover, the applicants have been disengaged from the service way back in the year 2016 though they are working from 2005. Therefore, there is no question of applicability of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs Piara Singh, (1992) 4 SCC 118, that one set of ad hoc employees should not be replaced by another set of ad hoc employees. A new notification has been issued and if at all the applicants are interested to compete in the selection process, then can participate in the selection process and they be considered by the competent authorities in accordance with the powers available with them.
8. It is to be noted that though the applicants submit that the Samagra Shiksha Scheme is newly introduced, however, it is a continuation of the earlier scheme. It is also to be noted that in the earlier round of litigation, this Tribunal has considered the issue in detail. It is also to be noted that a reasoned and speaking order has been passed, but so far, the applicants have not challenged the said speaking order. If at all the applicants wish to participate in the selection process, they are at liberty do so. In so far as the other aspects raised by the applicants, the respondents may consider the same, which they have accepted in their reply statement.
Q 10 MA 265/2023 & OA 318/2018
9. In view of the above, we are of the view that no case is made out in favour of the applicants.
10. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. Connected MA No.265/2023 stands closed. No order as to costs.
ee ame et ee ET