Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Vishnu Prajapat And Ors vs State (Elementry Education )Ors on 4 August, 2011
Author: Mn Bhandari
Bench: Mn Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
ORDER
1.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 7178/2011
Radha Rani Vs State of Rajasthan & ors
2.SB Civil Writ Petition No.5445/2011
Poonam Sharma & anr Vs State of Rajasthan & ors
3.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 5442 /2011
Sunil Kumar Sharma & Vs State of Rajasthan & ors
4.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 5443 /2011
Narendra Sharma & anr Vs State of Rajasthan & ors
5.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 5444 /2011
Manju Sharma & anr Vs State of Rajasthan & ors
6.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 5446/2011
Ram Rai Choudhary & anr Vs State of Rajasthan & ors
7.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 5447 /2011
Seema Devi & anr Vs State of Rajasthan & ors
8.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 5448/2011
Ravi Shankar Sharma & anr Vs State of Rajasthan & ors
9.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 5449/2011
Priyanka Solanki & anr Vs State of Rajasthan & ors
10.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 5450/2011
Priyanka Tiwari & anr Vs State of Rajasthan & ors
11.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 5451 /2011
Dhanraj Sharma & anr Vs State of Rajasthan & ors
12.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 5734/2011
Krishna Kant Sharma & anr Vs State of Rajasthan & ors
13.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 6648 /2011
Jugal Kishore Avasthi & anr Vs State of Rajasthan & ors
14.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 6649/2011
Shiv Kumar Nagar & anr Vs State of Rajasthan & ors
15.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 7632 /2011
Raj Kumar Garwa & ors Vs State of Rajasthan & ors
16.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 7634/2011
Smt Raj Kumari Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan & ors
17.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 6978/2011
Pawan Sharma & ors Vs State of Rajasthan & ors
18.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 7275/2011
Surendra Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan & ors
19.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 6647/2011
Bhavnendra Sharma & anr Vs State of Rajasthan & ors
20. SB Civil Writ Petition No. 7276/2011
Nityendra Kumar Sharma & ors Vs State of Rajasthan & ors
21.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 7277/2011
Ajay Nagar & ors Vs State of Rajasthan & ors
22. SB Civil Writ Petition No. 7291/2011
Rakesh Kumar Patel & ors Vs State of Rajasthan & ors
23.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 7365 /2011
Suresh Kumar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan & ors
24.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 7373 /2011
Vishnu Prajapat & ors Vs State of Rajasthan & ors
25.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 7375/2011
Sudheer Sharma & ors Vs State of Rajasthan & ors
26.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 7378/2011
Sanjay Kumar & ors Vs State of Rajasthan & ors
27.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 7379/2011
Mukesh Chand Kasotiya & ors Vs State of Rajasthan & ors
28.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 7381/2011
Sarit Kumar Vashishtha & ors Vs State of Rajasthan & ors
29.SB Civil Writ Petition No.7490 /2011
Kiran Prasad Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan & ors
30.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 6046/2011
Suresh Chand Verma & ors Vs State of Rajasthan & ors
31.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 6047/2011
Narendra Sharma & ors Vs State of Rajasthan & ors
32.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 6048/2011
Babu Lal Sahu & ors Vs State of Rajasthan & ors
33.SB Civil Writ Petition No.6219 /2011
Smt Hemlata Sharma & ors Vs State of Rajasthan & ors
34.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 7138/2011
Smt Khushbu Gauttam & ors Vs State of Rajasthan & ors
35.SB Civil Writ Petition No.7724 /2011
Smt Sunil Kumari & ors Vs State of Rajasthan & ors
36.SB Civil Writ Petition No.6375/2011
Jatin Kumar Pareek & ors Versus State of Rajasthan & ors
37.SB Civil Writ Petition No.8149/2011
Nutan Kumar Sharma Versus State of Rajasthan & ors
38.SB Civil Writ Petition No.6587/2011
Dashrath Hansiwal Versus State of Rajasthan & ors
39.SB Civil Writ Petition No.6512/2011
Narpat Singh & ors Versus State of Rajasthan & ors
40.SB Civil Writ Petition No.6436/2011
Jitendra Kumar Sharma Versus State of Rajasthan & ors
41.SB Civil Writ Petition No.6437/2011
Praveen Kumar Kumawat Versus State of Rajasthan & ors
42.SB Civil Writ Petition No.5660/2011
Dinesh Chand Meena & ors Versus State of Rajasthan & ors
43.SB Civil Writ Petition No.6613/2011
Suresh Chand Saini & ors Versus State of Rajasthan & ors
44.SB Civil Writ Petition No.5735/2011
Madhusudan Udainiya & ors Versus State of Rajasthan & ors
45.SB Civil Writ Petition No.6508/2011
Anjana Sharma & anr Versus State of Rajasthan & ors
46.SB Civil Writ Petition No.6509/2011
Yograj Meena & ors Versus State of Rajasthan & ors
47.SB Civil Writ Petition No.6548/2011
Shivraj Meena & ors Versus State of Rajasthan & ors
48.SB Civil Writ Petition No.6550/2011
Babita Kumari & ors Versus State of Rajasthan & ors
4.8.2011
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI
Mr SS Hora
Mr Raghunandan Sharma
Mr RP Saini
Mr SK Singodiya
Mr Arvind Sharma
Mr Rameshwar Sharma
Mr Rajesh Vashishtha
Mr DK Bhardwaj - for the petitioners
Mr SK Gupta, Sr Adv with Mr Rajneesh Gupta
Mr Ganesh Meena, Government Counsel
Ms Priyanka Pareek, Dy Government Counsel for respondents
BY THE COURT:
This bunch of writ petitions involves similar controversy thus are heard together and decided by this common order.
Petitioners were appointed on contract basis to work as Resource Teacher or Caregiver in Sarva Shiksha Abhiyaan. They have been engaged through placement agency thus their term was extended from time to time. By virtue of the aforesaid, an artificial break is given to them every year. These writ petitions were accordingly filed to seek redressal of grievances.
Learned counsel for petitioners submit that Sarva Shiksha Abhiyaan is a project started under National Education Policy and is being implemented by Rajasthan Primary Education Council. The project was launched by the Government of India for achievement of universalisation of education within time frame as mandated by 86th Amendment of the Constitution. The project aforesaid has been extended from time to time and presently it is extended upto 2017 though it is expected to be extended again looking to the object sought to be achieved.
Vide the impugned order dated 22.2.2011, respondent No.2 issued directions to all the District Co-ordinators that Resource Teachers and Caregivers should be continued till 15.5.2011 and from 1.7.2011 new Resource Teachers and Caregivers should be given appointment. Aforesaid is nothing but to replace one set of contractual employees by another in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner. Petitioners should be continued till the end of the project without interruption in service and even if they have to be discontinued on account of appointment of regularly selected candidates then it should be by adopting the method of 'last come, first go'. The termination of petitioners from 15.5.2011 should accordingly be held to be illegal.
The aforesaid view was taken by this court in the case of Mooli Devi versus State of Rajasthan reported in 2010 WLC (4) Rajasthan 334 and in the case of Vidyarthi Mitra decided in bunch of writ petitions led by petition No.4652/2009 vide its judgment dated 8.5.2009. Petitioners should accordingly be considered even for regularisation, if project is continued indefinitely.
Per contra, learned counsel for respondents submit that petitioners' appointment is purely on contract basis thus they have no right to continue. However, looking the changed circumstances, respondents are not going to replace the petitioners working on the post of Resource Teacher. So far as petitioners working on the post of Caregiver are concerned, they are not going to be continued looking to the change in the policy so approved by the state government. Post of Caregiver is no more required for the project hence, aforesaid decision has been taken, however, those Caregivers having requisite qualification for the post of Resource Teacher would be continued till the project ends or selected candidates by any source are made available to the respondents. Accordingly, respondents have no intention to continue Caregivers while the project is implemented by the respondent No.2. Since appointment of the petitioners is on contractual basis in a project, they have no right to claim for regularisation. Aforesaid issue has already been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Abdul Kadir & anr versus Director General of Police, Assam & ors reported in 2009(6) SCC 611. In the aforesaid judgment, Hon'ble Apex Court held that a claim for continuance or regularisation cannot be made by an employee for another programme or scheme. Accordingly, petitioners' continuance may be made on condition as given above and, that too, subject to their satisfactory service. With the aforesaid clarification if the petitioners are continued and writ petitions are disposed of, respondents have no objection.
I have considered rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case besides going through the judgments cited at the Bar.
Since the respondents have agreed to continue the petitioners working as Resource Teacher and even Caregiver having requisite qualification of Resource Teacher, the controversy comes to a narrow compass. This is more so when respondents have even agreed not to engage the petitioners through placement agency but with a clarification that they would not be entitled for wages for summer vacation. But, for other vacation, they would be entitled and paid wages as per rules. In view of aforesaid, the order dated 22.2.2011 is not likely to be given effect to hence, all these writ petitions are disposed of with following directions -
1 Impugned order dated 22.2.2011 passed by the respondents is set aside to the extent of a direction to discontinue petitioners and to engage new persons on contractual basis for those petitioners who are working on the post of Resource Teacher.
2. For the post of Caregiver also, aforesaid order would not be given effect to if petitioners possess requisite qualification of the post of Resource Teacher, as agreed by the respondents.
3. The Caregivers, who are not in possession of requisite qualification of the post of Resource Teacher, will have no right to continue as the scheme/ project has been changed requiring no Caregiver. It may, however, clarified that if respondents will try to engage new persons to undertake the work of Caregiver with different nomenclature then Caregivers would be given preference to continue.
4. Respondents will not engage the petitioners through placement agency, accordingly, they will be continued till life of the project but then respondents would be entitled to replace the petitioners by regularly selected appointees. While replacing the petitioners, principle of 'last come, first go' will be applied at district level.
5. The respondents would be at liberty to discontinue petitioner/s if their services are not found satisfactory or they misconduct while discharging the duties but after applying principles of natural justice.
6. Respondents will pay due salary to the petitioners within a month from the date of receipt of copy of this order and will further regularly pay the salary for the period petitioner/s work.
7. Petitioners would not be entitled for salary of summer vacation but would be entitled for salary for other vacation as per rules. Aforesaid arrangement has been agreed by both the parties.
8. If the project comes to an end then petitioners would have no right to continue and even for regularisation.
In view of disposal of the writ petitions, stay applications also stand disposed of.
(MN Bhandari) J.
bnsharma All corrections made in the judgment/ order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed.
(BN Sharma) PS-cum-JW