Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Before adverting to the principles enunciated by the decisions it is necessary to take note of the fact that one of the contentions raised was that the DEO has no powers to direct the management of a school to absorb a teacher or teachers declared to be surplus in light of the fact that right from the point of time of registration of a school as provided under Section 31 of the Act, it is the Secondary Board which is all in all.
2. The contention is required to be stated to be rejected. This contention looses sight of the fact that under Section 21 of the Act the State Government is empowered to appoint such other officers and servants as may be required to enable the Board to discharge its functions under the Act. In exercise of such powers read with Clause (vii) of Regulation 2 of the Secondary Education Regulations, 1974 (the Regulations) the State Government has appointed every District Education Officer to be an officer of the Board to discharge the functions of the Board under the Act and the Regulations in the District for which such DEO is appointed. This has been done by notification dated 08.10.1974 published in Gazette on 31.10.1974. This has to be noted in context of the definition of 'officer' as given in Regulation 2 (vii) of the Regulations. Therefore, to state that the DEO is a rank outsider in the present controversy cannot be accepted.
12. It is true that the State Government cannot issue directions to appoint a teacher or headmaster, but from that it is not possible to accept the contention that a teacher already appointed and rendered surplus because of diverse reasons, cannot be permitted to be absorbed in existing vacancy or a vacancy that arises subsequently. In the case of Chairman, Dhareshwar Sarvajanik Kelvani Trust and Anr. (supra) this Court has stated thus:
2. ...There is absolutely no substance in this contention. The appointment which is contemplated under Section 35(1) is a fresh appointment and it is not an absorption of teachers who are declared surplus due to closure of classes. The petitioner which is a grant-in-aid school is required to follow the directives under the Resolution dated 21.5.1994 issued by the Government under the provisions of Ss. 48 and 58 of the said Act and other enabling provisions. The direction to absorb a surplus teacher in a school which requires a teacher and which has opted to run on grant cannot be said to be unjust or arbitrary. If at all it would be very just arrangement to ensure that teachers, who have been declared surplus for no fault of theirs and only because of closure, are absorbed in other schools where teachers are needed. The challenge against the impugned Resolution cannot therefore be sustained. It was also submitted that the Resolution does not provide for consultation with the school concerned before a teacher is allotted to such school. In the context of things, it would be impossible to enforce such allotment if it is to depend on the consent of the school concerned. The grant-in-aid school which needs a teacher is allotted a teacher who is declared surplus by the District Education Officer and in such a situation there would be no need to consult the school concerned. Absence of such consultation cannot be in any manner treated as violation of any principles of natural justice inasmuch as the salary of a teacher is paid by the State and while allotting a surplus teacher to a school wanting a teacher, no decision adverse to the school is taken which may require a hearing to be given The petition is therefore without any substance and is rejected....

21. As already noted hereinbefore both the circulars in the form of resolutions record that the said resolutions have been framed after consultation and deliberation with the representatives of the Secondary Teachers' Federation, but the managements of the school, who are responsible to administer and manage the school which includes the teaching staff, have never been consulted during the decision making process. The grievances ventilated on behalf of the school management to an extent are well-founded. As noted by this Court in the case of Atladara Kelavani Mandal and Ors. (supra) a teacher who is declared surplus and who is directed to be absorbed is required to possess requisite qualification for imparting education in the subject for which a vacancy exists in a particular school. In other words, the respondent authorities are duty bound to ensure that a square peg is not hammered in a round hole.

22. The government, in the circumstances, can hold deliberations with the managements of the school to reformulate the policy after including the view point of the school managements and incorporate such guidelines as may be necessary to ensure that while absorbing the surplus teachers, as far as possible the school managements must have an option to choose a teacher for the vacancy that exists out of the panel of teachers, declared to be surplus, available with the office of the DEO; and in the event, a teacher declared to be surplus is not proficient in the subject for which a vacancy exists, there should be a procedure laid down to ensure that such a teacher, if available from the neighbouring district is considered for the job. However, it is necessary to make it clear that the option to select a competent teacher does not carry a right to reject outright the direction to absorb a teacher rendered surplus.