Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sandeep Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 June, 2022
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Ravi Malimath, Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 29th OF JUNE, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 2418 of 2022
Between:-
1. SANDEEP GUPTA S/O SHRI KASHI PRASAD
GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
UNEMPLOYED R/O VILLAGE AND POST
DAHARRA TEH. RAJNAGAR DIST.
CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. PRAMOD KUMAR AHIRWAR S/O SHRI BRAJLAL
AHIRWAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED R / O LUGASI,
POST-LUGASI, TEHSIL-NAUGAON, DISTRICT-
CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. RAJESH AHIRWAR S/O SHRI AJUDDI LAL
AHIRWAR, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED, R/O GRAM
PANCHAYAT-MAURAHA, POST-GATHEVRA,
TEHSIL AND DISTRICT-CHHATARPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. MAHESH CHANDRA PRAJAPATI S/O SHRI
DURJAN LAL PRAJAPATI, AGED ABOUT 40
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED, R/O
NARAYANPUR, POST SAURA, PANCHAYAT
PATHAPUR, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT-
CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. RAMPAL AHIRWAR S/O SHRI BHAGWAN DAS
AHIRWAR, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED, R / O VILLAGE
AND POST-TINDNI, TEHSIL-NAUGAVA,
DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. PANCHAM SINGH LODHI S/O SHRI KUNJI
Signature Not Verified
SAN
SINGH LODHI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: UNEM PLOYED, R / O VILLAGE-
Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN GHOGHARI, AND POST BAMHORI, TEHSIL-
KHAN
Date: 2022.07.05 19:03:06 IST BUXWAHA, DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA
2
PRADESH)
7. BALMUKUND PRAJAPATI S/O SHRI SUKHDEEN
PRAJAPATI, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: UNEM PLOYED, R / O VILLAGE-
DHAMAURA, POST-DHAMAURA, TAHSIL AND
DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
8. RAKESH KUMAR SONI S/O SHRI BADRI
PRASAD SONI, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCCUPATION : UN EM PLOYED , R / O VILLAGE
AND POST-BAMHAURI, TEHSIL-BUXWAHA,
DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
9. VISHWANATH AHIRWAR S/O SHRI PAKIYA
AHIRWAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
OCCUPATION : UN EM PLOYED , R/O VILLAGE
HAKIMPURA, POST BENIGANJ, TAHSIL
RAJNAGAR, DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
10. LAXMAN DAS AHIRWAR S/O SHRI BABULAL
AHIRWAR, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: UNEM PLOYED, R/O VILLAGE-
BARDWAHAKALA, JANPAD PANCHAYAT-
GURSARI POST-NUNA, P.S.-GADHI- MALHARA,
DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
11. MOHINI TIWARI W/O SHRI AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: UNEM PLOYED, R / O VILLAGE-
PADWAHA, DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
12. NARAYAN DAS AHIRWAR S/O SHRI
PARASURAM AHIRWAR, AGED ABOUT 27
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION : UN EM PLOYED , R/O
JHIJHAN, BLOCK -NAUGAON, TEHSIL-
NAUGAON, DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
13. SURENDRA KUMAR AHIRWAR S/O SHRI SANTU
AHIRWAR, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: UNEM PLOYED, R/O VILLAGE-
NAYAGAON, POST-TINDINI, TEHSIL-NAUGAON,
DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified 14. SMT. RANI KUSHWAHA W/O SHRI HEMANT
SINGH KUSHWAHA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
SAN
Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN
OCCUPATION: UNEM PLOYED, R/O VILLAGE-
KHAN
Date: 2022.07.05 19:03:06 IST NEGUWA, POST-DORIA WARD NO-3 ,
VEERENDRA COLONY, TEHSIL-NAUGAON,
3
DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
15. PRATIMA RAWAT W/O SHRI LALITA PRASAD
RAWAT, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
UNEM PLOYED, R / O VILLAGE-MALKA, POST-
UJRA, TEHSIL-MAHARAJPUR, DISTRICT
CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
16. LALTA PRASAD RAJPOOT S/O SHRI TULSI DAS
RAJPOOT, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: UNEM PLOYED, R / O VILLAGE-
PANNPURA, POST-LUGASI, TEHSIL-NAUGAON,
DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
17. SMT. NISHA PATHAK W/O SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR
PATHAK, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
OCCUPATION : UN EM PLOYED , R / O VILLAGE
AND POST-GALAN, VIKASH KHAND-NAUGAON,
TAHSIL NAUGAON, DISTRICT CHHATARPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
18. NASREEN KHAN MIRZA W/O SHRI RAFEEK
KHAN, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
UN EM PLOYED , R / O VILLAGE-HAKIMPURA,
POST-BENIGANJ, TEHSIL-RAJNAGAR, DISTRICT
CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
19. BRAJLAL AHIRWAR S/O SHRI RAMPRASAD
AHIRWAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: UNEM PLOYED, R / O VILLAGE-
RAVPUR, POST-RAMJHALA, TEHSIL-CHANDLA,
DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
20. DAULAT RAM AHIRWAR S/O SHRI BASORE LAL
AHIRWAR, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: UNEM PLOYED, R / O VILLAGE-
TUDAR, POST-MAHEBA, P.S-NAUGAON,
DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
21. ISHWARDEEN ANURAGI S/O SHRI CHUNVAD
ANURAGI, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: UNEM PLOYED, R / O VILLAGE-
JARAO MATA, POST-RAMJHALA, TEHSIL-
CHANDLA, DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
22. SMT. PHOOLA DEVI KUSHWAHA, W/O SHRI
Signature Not Verified
GHANSHYAM KUSHWAHA, AGED ABOUT 37
SAN
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION : UN EM PLOYED , R/O
VILLAGE AND POST-DHADARI, TAHSIL AND
DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN
KHAN
Date: 2022.07.05 19:03:06 IST
4
23. PHOOLWATI VISHWAKARMA W/O SHRI
NATHURAM VISHWKARMA, AGED ABOUT 33
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION : UN EM PLOYED , R/O
VILLAGE AND POST-KALANI, DISTRICT
CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
24. SMT PADMAJA PYASI W/O SHRI KUNJ BIHARI
PYASI , AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
UNEMPLOYED, R/O VILLAGE-MAJRA TAPRIYAN
DHARAMPURA, POST-DEVRA, TEHSIL-
BIJAWAR, DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
25. SUNEEL KUMAR AHIRWAR S/O SHRI GOKUL
PRASAD AHIRWAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED, R/O VILLAGE-
DADARI, POST-NAUGAON, TAHSIL NAUGAON,
DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
26. RAJKUMAR AHIRWAR S/O SHRI IMRAT
AHIRWAR, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED, R/O VILLAGE-
CHAURAI, POST-SEDARA, TEHSIL-BAKSWAHA,
DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
27. SMT NEETU JATAV W/O SHRI BHARAT LAL
JATAV, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
UNEMPLOYED, R/O WARD NO 08, BHAVUTIYA
TEEK, NAGAR PANCHAYAT SATAI, TEHSIL-
BIJAWAR, DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
28. SMT. NEELAM PRAJAPATI W/O SHRI KURA
PRAJAPATI, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCCUPATION : UNEMPLOYED, R/O VILLAGE
AND POST-SEVAR, TEHSIL BADA MALHERA,
DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
29. SMT. KESHAR AHIRWAR W/O SHRI CHURAMAN
AHIRWAR, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED, R/O VILLAGE-
BARON POST-SEVAR, BLOCK AND TAHSIL
BADA MALHERA, DISTRICT CHHATARPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
30. KAMAL SINGH LODHI S/O SHRI HIMMAT
SINGH LODHI, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED, R/O VILLAGE-
Signature Not Verified
SAN
SUNHARA, GRAM PANCHAYAT KUSMAD,
TEHSIL-BAKSWAHA, DISTRICT CHHATARPUR
Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN
KHAN
Date: 2022.07.05 19:03:06 IST
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5
31. SMT. SUNEETA CHADAR W/O SHRI HALLE
CHADAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED, R/O VILLAGE-
SUNHARA, TEHSIL-BAKSWAHA, DISTRICT
CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
32. KALYAN SINHG LODHI S/O SHRI LALLU SINGH
LODHI, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
UNEMPLOYED, R/O BHUJPURA, GRAM
PANCHAYAT CHACHAISEMRA, POST AND
TAHSIL BAKSWAHA, DISTRICT CHHATARPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
33. HIRALAL YADAV S/O SHRI KECHU YADAV,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
UNEMPLOYED, R/O VILLAGE AND POST-
NAINAGIR, TEHSIL-BAKSWAHA, DISTRICT
CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
34. DEVENDRA KUMAR AHIRWAR S/O SHRI PYARE
LAL AHIRWAR, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED, R/O VILLAGE-
MACHHANDRI, POST AND TEHSIL-BAKSWAHA,
DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
35. GANESH PRASAD YADAV S/O SHRI ACHCHE
LAL YADAV, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED, R/O VILLAGE-
GEVLAI, POST AND TAHSIL BAKSWAHA,
DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
36. KAILASH SHRIWAS S/O SHRI BHAGWAN DAS
SHRIWAS, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED, R/O VILLAGE-
PANCHAYAT MADDEVRA, JANPAD PANCHAYAT
BAKSWAHA, TAHSIL BAKSWAHA, DISTRICT
CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
37. KALICHARAN AHIRWAR S/O SHRI UDDETA
AHIRWAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED, R/O VILLAGE-
MUDIYA, POST-BAMHORI, TEHSIL-BAKSWAHA,
DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
38. ACHCHE LAL PRAJAPATI S/O SHRI CHHANDANI
LAL PRAJAPATI, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED, R/O VILLAGE-
JAITPURA, POST-PAUDI, TEHSIL-BAKSWAHA,
DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN
KHAN
Date: 2022.07.05 19:03:06 IST
39. SMT. JAMNI AHIRWAR W/O SHRI KAMLESH
AHIRWAR, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
6
OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED, R/O VILLAGE-
MAHUTA, POST-SAUDARA, TEHSIL-BAKSWAHA,
DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
40. SMT. MINI JAIN W/O SHRI RAMESH KUMAR
JAIN, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
UNEMPLOYED, R/O VILLAGE AND POST-
BAMHAURI, TEHSIL-BUXWAHA, DISTRICT
CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
41. PAPPU AHIRWAR S/O SHRI SETUVA AHIRWAR,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
UNEMPLOYED, R/O MADIYA BUJURG, MAIN
GALI, NEAR OF SCHOOL, POST-NIWAR,
BIJAWALI TEHSIL-BAXSWAHA, DISTRICT
CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
42. SMT. MAYA PRAJAPATI D/O SHRI SHIVRAM
PRAJAPATI, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
OCCUPATION : UNEMPLOYED, R/O VILAGE
PANCHAYAT -NAINGIR, TEHSIL-BAKSWAHA,
DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
43. SMT. KALI DEVI AHIRWAR W/O SHRI
DEVIDEEN AHIRWAR, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED, R/O VILLAGE-
PATAN, BLOCK-BIJAVAR, DISTRICT
CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
44. VIMLA KEWAT D/O SHRI GOVIND KEWAT,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
UNEMPLOYED, R/O VILLAGE-MAMRA, POST-
JHEEK BIJURI TEHSIL-JAITPUR, DISTRICT
CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
45. UMA SHARMA S/O SHRI RAMKUSHAL
SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED, R/O VILLAGE-
BARGAVAN, POST BALVAHRA, BLOCK
KUTHAR, TEHSIL-BUDHAR, DISTRICT
SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)
46. JAI PRAKASH MAHRA S/O SHRI PHOOLCHAND
MAHRA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
UNEMPLOYED, R/O VILLAGE PANCHAYAT-
SIDHLI, POST-KHAMHIDOL, TEHSIL-JAITPUR,
DISTRICT SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
47. MAMTA MAHRA W/O SHRI KAMAL DAS
SAN
Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN
MAHRA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
KHAN
Date: 2022.07.05 19:03:06 IST UNEMPLOYED, R/O VILLAGE-JAMUNIHA, POST-
KESHVAHI, TEHSIL-JAITPUR, DISTRICT
7
SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)
48. RAJARAM AHIRWAR S/O SHRI CHINTU
AHIRWAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED, R/O VILLAGE-
PIDPA, POST-KALANI, DISTRICT CHHATARPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
49. PREETAM AHIRWAR S/O SHRI MUNNI LAL
AHIRWAR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED, R/O VILLAGE-
GORGAYN, POST-DHAMOURA, TEHSIL-
C H H ATA R P U R , DISTRICT CHHATARPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI BRINDAVAN TIWARI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH
SECRETARY SCHOOL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT MANTRALAYA VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COMMISSIONER, RAJYA SHIKSHA KENDRA
PUSTAK BHAWAN, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DISTRICT COORDINATOR, JILA SHIKSHA
KENDRA, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
CHHATAR PUR OFFICE AT KISHOR SAGAR
TALAB AREA, CHHATARPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. DISTRICT COORDINATOR, SCHOOL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SHAHDOL, OFFICE
AT NEAR STADIUM SHAHDOL, DISTRICT
SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. COLLECTOR, CHHATARPUR DISTRICT-
CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. COLLECTOR S HAHD OL DISTRICT SHAHDOL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
SAN 7. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, JANPAD
PANCHAYAT BUDHAR DISTRICT-SHAHDOL
Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN
KHAN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
Date: 2022.07.05 19:03:06 IST
8
8. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER JANPAD
PANCHAYAT NAUGAON DISTRICT-
CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
9. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, JANPAD
PANCHAYAT BAXVAHA DISTRICT-
CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
10. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER JANPAD
PANCHAYAT BADA MALHERA DISTRICT-
CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
11. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER JANPAD
PANCHAYAT GAURIHAR DISTRICT-
CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
12. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER JANPAD
PANCHAYAT LAV KUSH NAGAR CHHHATARPUR
DISTRICT-CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
13. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER JANPAD
PANCHAYAT CHHARPUR DISTRICT-
CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
14. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER JANPAD
PANCHAYAT RAJNAGAR DISTRICT-
CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
15. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER JANPAD
PANCHAYAT BIJAWAR DISTRICT-
CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SUYASH THAKUR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Vishal Mishra passed the following:
ORDER
The present petition has been filed against the order dated 23.11.2021 passed by the respondent no.2 and the order dated 16.12.2021 passed by the respondent no.3 whereby, petitioners are not being provided the privilege Signature Not Verified SAN towards the work which they have performed from 2014 to 2018 in pursuance Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN to the Scheme floated by the Government regarding providing education in the Date: 2022.07.05 19:03:06 IST 9 rural areas.
A new Scheme has been floated by the Central Government in the name of Sakshar Bharat Yojana. Expenses to be incurred in the ratio of 60:40 by the Central and the State Government. It is argued that the petitioners are already experienced teachers as they have worked under the previous Scheme floated by the Government. The Government has assigned the work to the new candidates, who are inexperienced and no weightage has been given to the past experience of the petitioners. Therefore, the aforesaid action of the Government is being put to challenge in this petition, placing reliance upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Rattanlal and others v. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1987 SC 478, State of Haryana and others v. Piara Singh and others, AIR 1992 SC 2130 and in the case of Hargurpratap Singh v. State of Punjab and others, (2007) 13 SCC 292. Counsel appearing for the petitioners has also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Deepti Pandey and others v. Union of India and others (Writ Petition No.13717 of 2021, decided on 04.04.2022) with respect to vocational teachers and has prayed for similar relief to be extended to them. It is argued that the shifting policy of the State Government whereby some work is being assigned to the new candidate is illegal. Therefore, they have prayed for the following reliefs:
"i. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash impugned instructions/orders dated 23.11.2021 (Annexure P/1) & policy appended thereto, and order dated 16.12.2021 (Annexure P/2) with entire effect, in the interest of justice.Signature Not Verified SAN
ii. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash Annexure P/14 and orders/decision of the State Government Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 2022.07.05 19:03:06 IST whereby, same work is to be assigned to new un- experienced persons in place of the petitioners and the 10 petitioners may be permitted to work in new scheme/project, in the interest of justice.
iii. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased hold that, the impugned action of the respondents whereby, the petitioners are thrown out under the illegal policy of hire and fire and same is contrary to the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, in the interest of justice. iv. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant s i m i l a r interim/final relief as is granted in W.P. No.28361/2021 ANNX.P/16, in the interest of justice. v. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct th e respondent/State to produce entire file/Nasty including exp en ses incurred by State Government and Central Government including the budget provided by both these authorities, in the interest of justice.
vi. Any other relief/order, which this Hon'ble Court deem fit looking to the facts and circumstances of the case in the ends of justice."
Per contra, counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the contentions and has submitted that the earlier Scheme introduced by the Government has come to an end and the new Scheme has been introduced in the name of Saksharta Karyakram (Padhna Likhna Abhiyan) Avam Nav Bharat Saksharta Karyakram. The object of the Scheme is to provide education in the rural areas. Anyone fulfilling the conditions can apply in the Scheme. The Padhna Likhna Abhiyan was up to 31 st March, 2024 and the Nav Bharat Saksharta Karyakram is from 1st April, 2022 to 2027. It is further pointed out that no remuneration or salary will be provided to the candidate, who is willing to render his services in pursuance to the Scheme floated by the Central Government. Only the prizes and appreciation certificates will be provided. This Signature Not Verified SAN is a new Scheme, which has been floated by the Central Government, wherein, Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN the candidates like petitioners are free to participate. The contention of the Date: 2022.07.05 19:03:06 IST 11 petitioners that they have already rendered their services from 2014-2018, therefore, they should have been considered, is of no help to them because the aforesaid was a contractual work being done by them. The judgment passed in the case of vocational teachers is distinguishable and no relief can be extended on the basis of the order passed with respect to vocational teachers. The work rendered under the contractual services cannot be considered for extending the benefit for another contractual job under a different Scheme. It is a settled principle of law that a contractual employee is having no right for continuation of service and cannot even ask for extension of contract period. The rights of the contractual employee were considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India Vs. S.N. Goyal, (2008) 8 SCC 92, a relevant portion of which cumulatively reads as under:-
"Where the relationship of master and servant is purely contractual, it is well settled that a contract of personal service is not specifically enforceable, having regard to the bar contained in section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Even if the termination of the contract of employment (by dismissal or otherwise) is found to be illegal or in breach, the remedy of the employee is only to seek damages and not specific performance. Courts will neither declare such termination to be a nullity nor declare that the contract of employment subsists nor grant the consequential relief of reinstatement. The three well recognized exceptions to this rule are:
(i) where a civil servant is removed from service in contravention of the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India (or any law made under Article
309);
(ii) where a workman having the protection of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is wrongly terminated Signature Not Verified SAN from service; and Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN
(iii) where an employee of a statutory body is KHAN Date: 2022.07.05 19:03:06 IST terminated from service in breach or violation of any 12 mandatory provision of a statute or statutory rules.
There is thus a clear distinction between public employment governed by statutory rules and private employment governed purely by contract. The test for deciding the nature of relief damages or reinstatement with consequential reliefs is whether the employment is governed purely by contract or by a statute or statutory rules. Even where the employer is a statutory body, where the relationship is purely governed by contract with no element of statutory governance, the contract of personal service will not be specifically enforceable. Conversely, where the employer is a non-statutory body, but the employment is governed by a statute or statutory rules, a declaration that the termination is null and void and that the employee should be reinstated can be granted by courts."
Further, Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.617 of 2015 (Brijendra Gupta vs. State of M.P. and Others (Supra) and in bunch of cases in this regard has held as under:-
"Each of the appellants accepted these conditions and were fully aware that their services would be continued on contract basis only for a period of 2 years. It is a different matter that the appellants were continued in service, but, by extending contract period, their appointment nevertheless, shall remain on contract basis. No document or Regulation has been filed by the appellants and atleast brought to our notice, which may even remotely suggest that there was an agreement reached between the parties that on completion of 5 years of contractual service the concerned employee would be regularized in service. The fact that the appellants have now become over age and will not be eligible for appointment elsewhere, cannot be the basis to answer the controversy. The matter has to be answered keeping in mind that the contractual employee cannot insist for regularization in absence of policy, scheme or regulation having the backing of law and enforceable against the employer. In the present case, no such document has been brought to our notice. As a result, it is not open to this Court Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN to issue writ to direct the respondents to regularize the appellants in service. The fact that the appellants have KHAN Date: 2022.07.05 19:03:06 IST 13 served the respondent/Company for almost five years, by itself, cannot be the basis to issue such direction unless it is a case of legally enforceable right which has accrued in favour of the appellants. That is not the case at hand."
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, 2006 (4) SCC 1, a Constitutional Bench has held as under:-
"43. Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since the rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a court would certainly be disabled from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need to comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, consistent with the scheme for public employment, this Court while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee. If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right. The High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution, should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularisation, or permanent continuance Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. Merely because an KHAN Date: 2022.07.05 19:03:06 IST 14 employee had continued under cover of an order of the court, which we have described as "litigious employment" in the earlier part of the judgment, he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in the service. In fact, in such cases, the High Court may not be justified in issuing interim directions, since, after all, if ultimately the employee approaching it is found entitled to relief, it may be possible for it to mould the relief in such a manner that ultimately no prejudice will be caused to him, whereas an interim direction to continue his employment would hold up the regular procedure for selection or impose on the State the burden of paying an employee who is really not required. The courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities or lend themselves the instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates.
(Emphasis supplied)"
The aforesaid aspect was considered in State of Bihar and Others Vs. Kirti Narayan Prasad, (2018) 11 JT 540 and it was held as under:
"In Umadevi (supra) the Constitution Bench has held that unless appointment is made in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee. If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it was an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is discontinued. A temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment. It was also clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged Signature Not Verified SAN by the relevant rules."Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN
The Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1397 of 2018 (Pradeep KHAN Date: 2022.07.05 19:03:06 IST Tiwari Vs. State of M.P. and others, decided on 12.10.2018) has considered 15 the rights of contractual employees and has held as under :
"this is not a case of termination but that of not extending the period of contract on its coming to an end and in this regard reliance can be placed on the decision of this High Court in the case of Ashutosh Sharma (Dr.) Vs. School of Planning & Architecture, Bhopal and others as reported in ILR 2010 III SN 75 wherein it has been held that High Court can not sit over the decision of the employer as if it exercising appellate jurisdiction. Respondent having refused to enter into a contract of service with the petitioner for the reasons not arbitrary or illegal, a writ of mandamus cannot compel respondent to enter into a contract contrary to its wishes. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of A.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Koneti Venkateswarulu and others as reported in (2005) 7 SCC 177."
Under this project the candidate, who is willing to render his services without any remuneration or salary is required to apply. It appears to be a charitable work, which has to be rendered under the Project. In such circumstances, as aforesaid being a new policy floated by the Central Government wherein, the candidates like petitioners are free to participate, therefore, no relief can be extended under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
taj
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN
KHAN
Date: 2022.07.05 19:03:06 IST