Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"

HAG! & MSM! WREPIL) 3812018 The secorid respondent filed counter denying material allegations, inter alia contending that the petition of public iriterest litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable and it is misconceived, since the dispute is with regard to recruitment through outsourcing agency, which is purely a service dispute and public interest litigation cannot be maintained, in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others! and on this ground alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. It is specifically contended that, when the petitioner is questioning Memo No.ESEOI- 12029 /96/2018-PROG? SECT-SE ---DEPT dated 04.09.2018, he ought to have made a representation or demanded the authorities concerned ie respondents 1 & 2 and in the event of denial to discharge their legal duty, he can approach the respondents, subject to maintainability of writ petition as public interest Itigation. But, the petitioner straight away approached the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, therefore, on this ground alone, the petition is liable to be dismissect. | The memo impugned in this writ petition was issued in terms of existing governmental outsourcing policy and unless outsourcing policy is set-aside, the petitioner cannot question the procedure adopted by the respondents. The allegation that the manpower agencies are selling the posts for consideration in lakhs as per the demand is incorrect, for the reason that, no specific complaint is received from any comer of the State or from any of the aspiring candidates. The petition is filed on imaginary grounds, playing fraud and in the absence of any material to substantiate the same, the petition cannot be maintained. The respondent admitted about issue 1 1998 (7) 8CC 273 HACT & MSM WPPILY O8b 298 of memos by respondents 1 & 2, However, contended that intentionally a memo was issued by the second respondent to hold (he selection process, But, on verification of those news items in the news papers, a discrete enquiry was conducted and found no truth in ihe allegations made in the news items. Thereupon, issued memo impugned in this writ petition directing the Project Officers to complete ithe process of selection through outsourcing apericies. Hence, contended that the memo impugned in this writ petition cannot be set-aside, The respondent admitted about the initial funding of 85% by the Central Government and 15% funding by the State Government, depending upon the budget allocation. But, share of expenditure varies from year to year. For the academic year 2015-2016, the Central Government share was 60% of the total expenditure and the remaining 40% was borne by the State Government itsel. For every financial year. the Government of India released funds to the State Implementing Society in two instalments. Le. in the months of April and September of the year and the funds thus released will be credited to the bank account of the State implementing Society and they will be utilized for various mterventions like opening of new schools, alternate schooling facilities, construction of school buildings, additional classrooms, iollets, providing drinking water, feachers, regular teacher in service training, academic resource Support, free textbooks & uniforms, support for inyproving learning activities.

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 & 3 contended that, entrustment to Project Officers to complete the process of selection through outsourcing agencies is only in view of the orders passed by the State Government. The State probed into the allegations published in the news items and when the news items were published complaining about fraud, and found no truth in if, consequently, the memo impugned in this writ petition was issued, though the second respondent issued a memo directing to hold the recruitment process until further orders, Enquiry was conducted only for issuance of memo by the second respondent and when the first respondent found no truth in the allegations, the impugned memo tn HACT & MSMYJ WPEPILY 381 32018 this wril petition was issued, so as to gear up the process of selection of teaching and non-teaching staff by the outsourcing agencies, to cater the needs of the students under Sarva Siksha Abhiyan Scheme. Learned Standing Counsel specifically contended that the public interest litigation is not maintainable in service matters, since recruitment of teaching and non-teaching staff directly falls under service dispute and relied on two judgments of the Apex Court in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others (referred supra) and P, Seshadri v. 8S. Mangati Gopal Reddy and others?. In view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the above two judgments, he requested to dismiss the writ petition, while supporting the memo impugned. issued by the first and second respondents.

Hf, these principles are applied to the present facts of the case, before aciverting, the Court has to examine the object behind this litigation as the petitioner had no interest either direct or indirect. atleast a remote interest in the litigation.

In the present facis of the case, the proceedings were issued to undertake appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff under the scheme of Sarva Siksha Abhyan, which is purely temporary in nature. The Central Government contributes part of amount and the balance shall be borne by the State Government to run the schools with teachers, as per the norms referred in the earlier paragraphs. The scheme is purely temporary in nature and when the scheme is temporary, the Court meed not undertake impact assessment on account of such appointments. More particularly. the financial burden is on the State if they were allowed to continue in service after expiry of scheme. When temporary governmental schemes are arganized for students and selection process is taken up by the respondents through! manpower agencies, selection cannot be questioned as it purely a dispute of employment, which cannot be decided in Public Interest Litigation, in view of the law declared by the . | . 16 HACS & M&M3 WEPILG SSE 2018 Apex in the judgments referred supra, more particularly, when the petitioner has no remotest interest in litigation, it is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court for personal vendetta. Therefore, the Court shall exercise its power to curb such public interest litigation against a person who is claiming to be a social activist and practicing advocate at the threshold. Uf, such Public Interest Litigations are not nipped at the bud, it will multiply and devouring most of the valuable Courts time. thereby preventing the courts from a concentrating in deciding real disputes where the public valuable rights are involved. Therefore. taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and applying the law laid down by the Apex Court and other Courts referred supra, we find that the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as a public interest litigation, which is purely a dispute regarding mode of selection of temporary teaching and non-teaching staff of the State is mot maintainable. On this ground alone, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the point is held against the petitioner and in favour of the respondents. POINT NO.2 The main relief claimed by this petitioner in this petition is to quash the Memo No.ESEO1-12029/96/2018-P dated 04.09.2018. The petitioner did not challenge the process of selection of teaching and non-teaching staff through outsourcing agency Le manpower agency notified by the District Collector, But only questioned the Memo No. ESE0Q1-12029/96/2018-P dated 04.09.2018. whereby the first respondent directed the Project. Director to cormplete selection process of teaching and non-teaching staff. If the memo is quashed or set-aside, again respondents 1 & 2 may issue and pass appropriate arders directing the Project Officers to complete the selection process, HACER MSMI WPL) 381 2018 in view of the urgent need of the staff members, more particularly about the teaching staff to cater to the needs of the students who are prosecuting their studies, as annual examinations are fast approaching. When the respondents issued directions to the Project Directors ta undertake selection for the posts of teaching and non- teaching staff, in view of the State Government Policy, for outsourcing of temporary staff, the Memo No.ESEO1-12029/96/2018-P dated 04.09.2018 cannot be set-aside, since ft is only direction issued by the respondents to the Project Directors.