Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the 3rd respondent basically contending that, all the vacancies arose due to the abolition of shift system can be filled up with retrenched teachers and protected teachers vide G.O(MS) No.92/10/G.Edn. Dated 04.06.2010. Moreover the schools where petitioners appointed being uneconomic direct appointment by the manager is not admissible as per GO(P) No.259/2006/G.Edn. Dated 12.10.2006 read together with circular No. 4545/12/2007/G.Edn. Dated 18.05.2007. It is also pointed out that, all the petitioners are appointed only on daily wage basis and so they have no claim as per the provisions in the KER. Hence the petitioners cannot be treated as retrenched/protected teachers. The sum and substance of the contention put forth by the 3rd respondent is that, the direct appointment of the petitioners made by the 5th respondent is irregular in the light of the notification specified above. Therefore Ext.P9 series of orders passed by the State Government is in accordance with law.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the University.

6. The discussion made above would make it clear that, in Ext.P9 series of orders, Government has taken into account basically the pendency of the writ petition before this Court challenging the teachers package. As is noted above, the teachers package order was interfered with by this Court in the writ petition and the same was quashed. Eventhough it is stated that due to the abolition of the shift system, the protected teachers are to be appointed in the school, in my considered opinion, the various Government Orders referred to in the counter affidavit filed by the 3 rd respondent before this Court and the Government Order relied upon by the petitioner as well as the judgment of this Court could not be considered by the Government.