Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. Considering the aforesaid direction of the Tribunal, the Government under G.O. (RT) No. 273 dated 7.4.1994 passed an order to the effect that the vocational instructors, who were brought under regular scale in G.O. Ms. No. 712 dated 28.5.1990 and G.O. Ms. No. 967 dated 16.10.1992, are to be considered as part time instructors and they are to be paid lumpsum remuneration from the date of issue of the orders passed in the respective O.As. i.e., 18.6.1993 and 17.12.1993. Such order of the Government was challenged by the instructors who had been already regularised and order of stay was granted.

14. Thereafter the Tribunal by judgment dated 29.11.2002 dismissed the batch of O.As, giving rise to the present writ petitions.

15. The contention before the Tribunal was to the effect that G.O.(R.T). No. 273 dated 7.4.1994 and G.O. Ms.834 dated 23.9.1994 were inconsistent with the policy decision taken and at any rate the double part time teachers numbering 1387 had already been regularised and under the impugned G.Os such vested right was taken away. A contention had also been raised that the above Government Orders were discriminatory as compared to P.G. Assistants. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that G.O. Ms. No. 712 dated 28.5.1990 and G.O. Ms. No. 967 dated 16.10.1992 were set aside by the Tribunal in the applications filed by the single part time teachers and thereafter the Government had decided to regularise all, whether single part time or double part time on the basis of their seniority. The Tribunal also observed :-

19. The Government under the pretext of giving effect to the order of the Tribunal in those cases have purported to take away the rights already conferred on the petitioners and other vocational instructors who had been regularised. Apart from the fact that the Tribunal had not specifically set aside the G.O. Ms. No. 712, the fact that the beneficiaries under G.O. Ms. No. 712 had already been regularised were not before the Tribunal and the right which was already vested in them could not have been taken away by such decision. As a matter of fact, in our opinion, the Tribunal had never indicated to take away such vested right. On the other hand it only emphasised that single part time teachers should be treated on the same footing. It is evident that the order of the Tribunal has been misinterpreted by the Government resulting in taking away the vested right of the petitioners.

20. It is not disputed that by virtue of the said orders passed by the High Court in several cases, the vocational teachers continue to enjoy the benefits of their regularisation as per G.O. Ms. No. 712 and G.O. Ms. No. 967.

Subsequently, the single part time teachers have been regularised. In the guise of giving effect to the orders of the Tribunal, the respondents have deprived the petitioners of their vested right even though such petitioners were not parties before the Tribunal and had not been heard either by the Tribunal or by the Government. As a matter of fact, the present impugned order has the effect of terminating the services of the persons who had already been regularised and of course reappointing them on a subsequent date.