Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pushpraj Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 January, 2015
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
WRIT PETITION No.7846/2012
Pushpraj Singh & others
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh & others
____________________________________________________________
Shri Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the
petitioners.
Shri Rahul Jain, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents-
State.
____________________________________________________________
Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi
____________________________________________________________
O R D E R
(21/01/2015) The grievance of the petitioners is with respect to the order dated 17.03.2012, collectively placed on record as Annexure P-6. It is the case of the petitioners that initially they were appointed under the Scheme of Education Guarantee floated by the State Government, as Gurujis. However, since the scheme was closed in the year 2004, the persons like petitioners were not allowed to continue in the employment. The State Government, in the meanwhile, made the rules known as Madhya Pradesh Contract Teachers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2005. In the said rules a provision was made that those, who were earlier working as Guruji, would be required to take part in the eligibility test to be conducted by the selection committee and in case they qualify the said eligibility test, they would be considered for grant of appointment as contract teachers. Accordingly, the petitioners took part in the said eligibility test. However, their results were declared in terms of the orders passed by 2 this Court in W.P. No.1515/2009. Since the petitioners were found eligible to be appointed on the posts of contract teacher, orders were issued on 06.01.2012 and 10.01.2012 appointing the petitioners as contract teachers. Since in the meanwhile yet another change had taken place and all those, who were appointed as contract teachers, were absorbed in the cadre of Sahayak Adhyapak and Adhyapak, considering the claim of the petitioners, orders were issued on 15.02.2012 absorbing the petitioners as Sahayak Adhyapak. It is the case of the petitioners that since they were regularly appointed contract teachers, they were to be absorbed as Sahayak Adhyapak in the new cadre created by the State Government in terms of the rules made in that respect.
2. All of a sudden, notices were issued to some of the petitioners indicating that their orders of absorption were to be cancelled since they were not to be treated as recruited on the post of contract teachers. These notices were replied by the petitioners and necessary documents were placed on record before the respondents. However, without considering the reply submitted by the petitioners, conducting independent individual enquiries in cases of each of the petitioners by cyclostyle order dated 17.03.2012, orders of their absorption in the cadre of Sahayak Adhyapak were cancelled.
3. This Court has entertained the writ petition and while issuing notices to the respondents, granted an interim protection to the petitioners vide order dated 28.06.2012. While admitting this petition on 05.02.2014, interim order was not vacated. However, since the reply was filed, it appears that on 19.03.2014 interim order was not continued, as a result the I.A. was required to be filed by the petitioners. It is the stand of the respondents, taken in the return, that petitioners were not to be absorbed on the post 3 of Sahayak Adhyapak. The issue raised in the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by a decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gopal Chawla (2), which decision has been affirmed by the Apex Court. It is contended in the return that since the petitioners were not eligible to be absorbed on the post of Sahayak Adhyapak nor were to be treated as appointed in the sanctioned posts of the State Government, they were not to be given the benefit of regular pay scale after absorption. It is contended in paragraph 4 of the return that the persons so appointed on honorarium are not at par with the regular employees of the State Government and are not to be given the benefit of regular pay scale. This being the folly, the orders of absorption of the petitioners have been cancelled, as has been specifically pleaded in the return.
4. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties at length and perusing the record, one thing is clear that individually the cases of persons like petitioners are not examined to ascertain whether at any point of time they were appointed as contract teachers after following the procedure prescribed under the relevant Rules of 2005 or not. If the contract teachers were to be absorbed on the post of Sahayak Adhyapak in terms of the statutory rules and if the petitioners were properly appointed on the post of contract teachers, the circular was not to be made applicable in their case as they were not to be treated standing on the same footing on which those who have approached the Court on earlier occasion in the case of Gopal Chawla (supra) were standing. The case of the petitioners would be if they are appointed on regular basis as contract teachers after following due process of selection, they would be entitled to be absorbed on the post of Sahayak Adhyapak in terms of the provisions made under the relevant rules of Sahayak Adhyapak. Such orders mechanically issued against the petitioners cannot be sustained.
45. Accordingly, orders dated 17.03.2012 issued in respect of each of the writ petitioners are hereby quashed. The matter is relegated back to the competent authority of the respondents to examine the individual case of the petitioners and to see whether they were appointed as contract teachers in terms of the relevant Rules of 2005 or not after following due process. In case it is found that the petitioners were appointed in the aforesaid manner, natural corollary would be that they would be entitled to be absorbed on the post of Sahayak Adhyapak in terms of the rules applicable to the said post.
6. Let this exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. The Collector, Rewa, is directed to supervise such conduct of enquiry personally. Needless to say, in case the petitioners are found eligible to be absorbed on the post of Sahayak Adhyapak, they would be entitled to all the consequential benefits of such absorption.
7. The writ petition is allowed and disposed of to the extent indicated herein above. There shall be no order as to costs.
(K.K. Trivedi) Judge Skc