Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The writ petitions can be bifurcated into two categories because of the simple reason that the State Government invited applications of the Ex-ad hoc teachers for appointment to the teachers grade III and the last date for submitting the application by the teachers was 15.3.2003. The writ petitions have been filed by the persons who submitted their applications by or before 15.3.2003 as well as who submitted their applications after 15.3.2003. In most of the writ petitions, replies were filed virtually admitting the entire claim of the petitioners with a plea that in view of the order dated 31.7.2003, presently no appointments are given and whenever further directions will be issued, the process of appointment shall be undertaken by the respondents. The order dated 31.7.2003 has been taken as ban against the appointment of the contract teachers. A detail rejoinder has been filed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12/2003 by the petitioners and the petitioners took a plea that by the order dated 3.1.7.2003 (Ann.R./1), the appointments were stayed till further order but in the order no reasons have been assigned. It is submitted that the decision of Minister is not binding against the cabinet decision and, therefore, the appointments cannot be withheld on the basis of such an order issued on oral instructions of the Minister of the department. It is also submitted that in some of the Zila Parishads, appointments have been made even after the order dated 31.7.2003. The petitioners also submitted that in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 502/2003-Nathu Ram Godara v. State of Raj. and Ors. validity was challenged regarding providing re-employment to the contract teachers. The State filed the reply stating therein that the persons who are already working on contract basis, they were given appointments pursuant to cabinet decision dated 7.11.2001. The said decision was admitted to be just, proper and reasoned one. The copy of the reply has been placed on record by the petitioner along with the rejoinder.

5. It will be worthwhile to mention here that a different reply has been filed by the State and in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6014/2003. In this writ petition, the State gave background under which the decision was taken and also submitted that earlier decision was taken to give appointments to the contract teachers on regular basis and for that purpose, appropriate amendment was made in the Rules of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 and which deal with the method of recruitment of teachers. Rule 296 gives power of relaxation in the Rules for appointment and before 16.12.1999, there was limited scope for relaxation in the rules for appointment but a notification was issued by the State Government on 16.11.1999 and the scope of relaxation was enlarged to give unlimited powers to the State Government in the matter of appointments. Earlier it was notified that persons who worked earlier as contract teachers on fixed pay of Rs. 400/- per month may be appointed on regular basis provided they have completed 240 days and if they are possessing qualifications as required by law but condition of working of 240 days etc. waived by an order and thereafter requirement of training was also waived. It was decided that a person who had worked as contract teacher then he could be appointed as teacher grade III with the condition that within a period of three years, he will get himself trained. Meaning thereby, the length of service rendered as contract teacher, requirements of qualification, age etc. were relaxed and some appointments were given to the contract teachers but those appointments were challenged by filing writ petition before this Court and this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1722/2000- Renu Sharma v. The State of Rajasthan struck down the amended provisions of Rule 296 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. It is also stated by the respondents that the said decision was approved and followed in various other decisions of this Court and even the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 223/2002-Yogesh Chandra Joshi v. State of Rajasthan held that such relaxation cannot be sustained, in view of the above legal position, it is submitted by the respondents that appointment could be given only as per the procedure contained in the Rules of 1996 and so also on the basis of the educational and training qualifications as envisaged in the Rules.

8. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners-Shri P.P. Choudhary submitted that all pleas taken by the respondents have no application to the facts of the most of the writ petitions including the writ petitions which are having the similar facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12/2003. It is also submitted that the petitioner's only grievance was that despite cabinet decision to give appointments to the contract teachers, the State authorities are not giving appointments to the petitioners and in reply, the only order which has been placed on record by the respondents in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12/2003 dated 31.7.2003 purports to convey that till further orders, no appointment be given. Such an interim stay cannot continue for indefinite period so as to nullify the decision of cabinet and policy decision of the State for giving appointments to the contract teachers who rendered their services earlier. It is also submitted that in reply the respondents admitted that as soon as fresh instructions will be issued, the appointments will be given, therefore, now the respondents have no right to turn round and submit that no appointments can be given. It is also submitted that though it is stated by the learned Addl. Advocate General before this Court that subsequently the cabinet decided to authorize the Chief Minister to take a decision in this matter and the Chief Minister took a decision not to give appointment but neither the decision was placed on record nor any order in pursuance of such decision has been submitted by the respondents in any of the writ petitions. Therefore, the writ petitions of the petitioners deserves to be allowed.

16. So far as the contentions of the petitioners that they rendered their services as contract teachers from the year 1984 and lastly upto the year 1989 is concerned, this fact became not much relevant because of the fact that if the initial appointment is not legal or has not been made by following the procedure of law or the appointment is not regular appointment, the persons served even for longer period cannot claim his regularization on the basis of length of his service. In these cases, the petitioners are not claiming regularization of their service on the basis of length of their past service. The petitioners are claiming that the decision was taken by the State to give appointments to the various persons who served as contract teachers under the scheme which was floated in the year 1984-85 and is known as black-board scheme. It is not in dispute that for appointment of teacher Grade III, the Rules are framed under the Panchayati Raj which are known as Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. The State has power to amend the Rules, is not in dispute but when amendment of rule is hit by the constitutional provisions, the amendment can be struck off. In these cases, it is not in dispute that the contract teachers were given appointments in a particular scheme known as black-board scheme and they were engaged as teachers on consolidated amount of Rs. 400/- per month. The scheme continued only upto 1987 but the appointments were given even upto the year 1992, is the admitted case of the State. The petitioners since earlier filed the writ petitions only because of the fact that the State Authorities were giving appointments to the contract teachers in pursuance of the cabinet decision dated 13.9.1999 and they might not be aware of the change in stand of the State in relation to the appointments of the contract teachers despite subsequent cabinet decision but when reply was filed by the State in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6014/2003 and the copy of the reply was supplied to other counsels, the petitioners cannot take a plea that simply because the State in the earlier filed reply has not taken the pleas which have been raised in subsequently filed reply, therefore, cannot raise the pleas in writ petition No, 12/2003 and connected writ petitions in which identical replies have been filed because of the simple reason that the pleas taken by the State are more founded upon the legal position rather, than factual. Even if for time being we ignore the subsequent decision of the State Government authorising the Chief Minister to take decision in matter and the Chief Minister took the decision of not giving appointments to contract teachers more, even then it was the duty of the petitioners to show under which provision of law they can get appointments particularly when appointments are governed by the Rules of 1996 as amended time to time. Some of the petitioners even have no educational qualification so as to make them eligible for appointments on the post and almost all the petitioners are not trained teachers as the petitioners are seeking direction for imparting training to them. The petitioners' counsels relied upon the rule which was amended by the notification dated 16.11.1999 but that notification was quashed by this Court in the case of Renu Sharma (supra), and the same view was taken in various judgments of this Court including Division Bench judgment of this Court referred above. Therefore, even if the State Government gave appointments or Zila Parishads recommended names of any of the contract teachers for appointment to the teacher Grade III, against the Rules which were in existence before 16.11,1999 and provided appointments to ineligible persons even after decision of this Court in Ram Sharma's case, that cannot be a ground to seek relief by claiming parity, equality or equity as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases referred above. There appears no reason for issuing a direction to the State Government for giving appointments to such large number of petitioners who rendered their services in past as teachers and against consolidated amount of Rs. 400/- per month which will deprive the eligible candidates from getting the appointments. In fact the petitioners failed to establish their any legal right for seeking appointments. Even if the order dated 31.7.2003 (Annex.R/1) submitted in the writ petition No. 12/2003 by the respondents is quashed, even then if any order of giving appointment to the petitioners will be given, that will be in violation to the statutory provisions of law, therefore, the judgment which was relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners delivered in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill (supra), has no application to the facts of these cases. The matter of regularization and relaxation for giving appointments has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court after considering various judgments of the Hon'ble' Supreme Court on this issue in the case of Richhpal Singh (supra), and in view of the reasonings given in the above judgment, the petitioners cannot claim appointments on the post of teacher Grade III which impliedly is seeking an order of relaxation in basic qualification for appointments to the teacher Grade III.