Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5) In so far as the argument of the petitioners that there should be a presumption that petitioners would be dispensed with, that very order dated 20/7/1991 was not challenged by the government, cannot be accepted because Tribunal while reproducing that circular of the government in its para 20 of the judgment, observed that petitioner who has completed more than 10 years of service on the post of untrained teacher, would not be required for further training and accordingly he should be paid regular pay scale. In other words, they would start getting salary and other allowances etc. only when they complete 10 years of service. It does not reflect that they would be deemed to have been regularised or that necessity of acquiring training would stand dispensed with. Tribunal in para 22 of the judgment in this connection also referred to the subsequent explanation issued by the government and held that petitioners were not entitled to any benefit on the strength of the said Circular. Petitioner has referred to various other government notifications in ground D of the writ petition but none of these notifications are placed on record. Learned counsel for respondents in this connection referred to the government notification pertaining to engagement of teachers in panchayati raj department but there can be no presumption that petitioners would be entitled to regularisation straightway without being availing training qualification. Tribunal in para 12 of the judgment, has considered the scheme of Rule 26B framed thereunder. Tribunal has observed that same qualification of eligibility should insist upon for those who are engaged as teachers in aided government educational institutions. Rule 10(xiii) of the rules contains the stipulation that ad hoc educatinal institution shall follow such rule and would appoint untrained teachers. This postulates that grant-in-aid would be paid only against the post and where the trained teachers are working. Tribunal in para 13 found that while four posts of teachers were filled in by regular teachers, but services of four untrained teachers were utilised by availing their services but then respondents initiated process and finally filled in those posts by appointing trained teachers. It was by virtue of engagement of the trained teachers that respondents terminated services of the petitioners. Action of the respondents cannot be said to be laconic or arbitrary or otherwise unauthorised. Condition of obtaining prior sanction of the Director School Education in terms of Rule 38 cannot be insisted or disengaging untrained teachers with a view to make appointment of trained teachers because such was the requirement of the rules. None of those notifications or circulars were produced either before the Tribunal or even before this Court.