Madras High Court
K.Ramanathan vs The Secretary To Government on 28 August, 2012
Author: K.Chandru
Bench: K.Chandru
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28.08.2012 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.10046 of 2008, M.P.Nos.1 of 2008 and 1 of 2009 1.K.Ramanathan 2.K.Natarajan 3.K.Sankar 4.R.Kumar 5.A.Pugazhenthi 6.M.Karthikeyan 7.R.Senthilkumar 8.A.Thirumalai 9.R.Vaithiyalingam 10.R.Thirumurugan ... Petitioners Vs. 1.The Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009. 2.The State Project Director, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, District Primary Education Programme, (Formerly), Chennai - 600 002. ... Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners who were employed as a Junior Engineer (Civil) into the time scale of pay. For Petitioners : Mr.Chandrasekaran for Mr.V.Karthikeyan For Respondents : Mr.P.Sanjay Gandhi, AGP(Edn) O R D E R
The writ petition was filed by 10 petitioners, seeking for a direction to regularize their services in the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) with the time scale of pay.
2. The writ petition was admitted on 23.04.2008. Pending the writ petition, this Court granted an interim injunction restraining the respondents from discontinuing the service of the petitioners who were working as Junior Engineer (Civil) on the ground that they were in continuous service from 1997. Though vacate stay application was filed by the respondent State in M.P.No.1 of 2009 together with supporting counter affidavit sworn to by the second respondent dated 23.03.2009, the same was not listed.
3. It is seen from the records that the petitioners were engaged under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Scheme. The original programme was to end by 30.06.2003 and it was implemented in 7 districts. The Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan is a time bound project for Universal Elementary Education implemented through Tamil Nadu State Mission of Education for All, which is a Society registered under Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act 1975. As per the guidelines of the Government of India, the objectives of the project was to be completed by 31.03.2010 and thereafter, the society has to be wound up. Funds for the scheme was provided by the Government of India and Government of Tamil Nadu as grants in the ratio 75:25 upto 2007 and at 65:35 in 2007-2008 and 2008-2009. The grants provided are subject to strict observance by the Tamil Nadu State Mission of Education for All as per the agreement entered into with the Government. The Manual of Financial Management and procurement of Sarva Shikshaa Abhiyan published by the Department of Elementary Education and Literacy, clearly provides that no new permanent post should be created and the feasibility of using the Human Resource available in the Administrative Structure in the Education Department and District Primary Education Programme should be explored first and no permanent liability should accrue on the Society or to the State Government due to filling up of the post. The consultants were recruited from open market and from retired Government servants and were engaged on contract basis. The consultants were paid only fees at fixed rte and not on time scale of pay. Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan project do not provide for appointment of persons on regular basis. The Executive Committee permitted the second respondent to create the post of civil work Engineer on consolidated pay of Rs.3,000/- per month.
4. The conditions of grant clearly stipulated that there shall be no appointment of permanent staff, except additional teachers as per Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan norms. The writ petitioners were appointed as Junior consultants and their demand that the post should be made permanent is not feasible for compliance. Their services are liable to be discontinued on completion of the scheme. The consultants were appointed on consolidated pay to supervise the civil works executed throughout the State and the posts were continued on the need basis system from time to time and considering the cost of living, wages were revised. Since the Scheme will be continued till 2010 instead of issuing orders on piece meal, the petitioners were directed to be continued until further orders. But it does not give any right for them to seek for any regularisation or grant of permanent status. The Block Resource Teachers Educator (BRTE) referred to by the petitioners are teacher educators recruited to impart training to the existing teachers. The Director of School Education is the appointing authority. They are working for the Society on deployment and their scale of pay was on par with regular graduate teachers. Anticipating continuance of teachers in the State on long term basis even after the closure of the Scheme, they were recruited as BT Assistants by following recruitment procedures. The civil work under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Scheme was to be executed under the supervision of Village Education Committee and under the relevant circumstances it could have been carried out by calling civil wing on deputation from the Public Works Department. Since the Public Works Department was not having enough staff to spare for this work, persons like the petitioners were appointed for supervising the civil work.
5. In the light of the stand taken by the respondents, the petitioners have not made out any case. It must be noted that the petitioners were not appointed by the State Government even on any temporary basis. In the absence of any service being created by the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, the petitioners cannot seek for any permanent status with scale of pay. It has been held by the Supreme Court vide its judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 that regularisation is not a source of recruitment.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners referred to an order passed by the State Government in G.O.(Ms)No.191 School Education Department, dated 30.07.2009 wherein adhoc rules have been framed for Vocational Instructors in Higher Secondary Schools and Vocational Instructors for Engineering and Technology. The petitioners can be considered as they are having necessary educational qualification for holding the post and therefore, a direction may be issued to absorb them as vocational instructors. As already held that in the absence of any assurance to the petitioners that they will be absorbed against the State service, the petitioners working under the society on adhoc basis cannot seek for any such direction. This Court is not inclined to issue any such direction in the absence of any legal or enforceable right on the part of the petitioners.
7. In the light of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
28.08.2012 Index : Yes / Internet : Yes / svki To
1.The Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The State Project Director, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, District Primary Education Programme, (Formerly), Chennai - 600 002.
K.CHANDRU,J.
Svki Order in W.P.No.10046 of 2008 28.08.2012