The single judge dismissed petitions seeking regularization, absorption, and preference in appointment as Shiksha Karmi. The court held that without proof of regular initial appointment on the cadre sought, writ courts cannot direct regularization, citing Umadevi and State of Rajasthan Vs. Daya Lai.
None granted. Petitions dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W11 W W WW, mm? (EFL) w.1>. (S) Nov. é,»0772012 tan.)
éi‘mim W, fhm gfr W.
GE W 28 33f, W—
Erm—aT‘faT. ui—aigm, HEW— aisat m—Wam ($.11)
17W 3W Em— WW Waa f§rzm W H'm. mg? (EFL) .“W x» 2....... WW, “a%¢ WTrf'afrmm1mm, W _ m— W (E31) 9i W3111w 1%“ W, WW1 W—W ‘ ($.11)
W3Trftfr mm W, EL W tiimm WW. 1126m~1 mm“. ' (3.11) [VW—m’éi’wm 5.‘ m"ah W, W Wm was Mm mm,Imam.
W—W (£6.11)
g £41m «imam
aE£\Wm -m NNN Q34?“
\41
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA3PUR SB: Hon’ble $hri Prashan‘t Kumar Mishra. J.
| WP. ($) No. 60712012 |
|
|---|---|
| PETlTlQNER | Narsottam Meravi |
| Versus |
|
| RESPQNDENT$ | State of Chhattisgarh and others. |
| WP. (33:) No. 60812012 | |
| PETITIONER | Ganga Singh Dhurve |
| Versus |
|
| RESPONDENTE: | State of Chhattisgarh and others. |
| <br> | WP. (S) No. 6091201 2 |
| PETH’IONER | Ashwani Kumar Sonwani |
| Versus | |
| RESPONDENT5 | State of Chhattisgarh and others. |
| WP. (S) No. 610i2012 | |
| PETITIONER | Naresh Kumar Pmjapati |
| Versus |
|
| RESPONDENT$ | State of Chhattisgarh and others. |
| WP. (3) No. 611/2012 | |
| PETITIDNER | Bah‘am Markam |
| Vergus |
|
| RE$PONDENT$ | State of Chhattisgarh and others. |
| WE“. (S) No. 61 21’2012 | |
| PETI'HONER | Shivkumar Markam |
| Versus | |
| RESPONDENTE | State of Chhattisgarh and others. |
| WP. (S) No. 613/2012 | |
| PETITIONER | Prakash Markam |
| Versus |
|
| RE$PONDENT$ | State of Chhattisgarh and others. |
| WP. ($3) No. 614/2012 | |
| PETITIONER | Jagdish Prasad Boriya |
| Versus | |
| MRESPONDENTS | State of Chhattisgarh andothers. |
WP. (S) No. $15l2012
PETITIONER Ramsharan Sahu Versus RESPONDENT$ State of Chhattisgarh and others. WP. {5) No. 61 6/201 2
PETITIONER Bhanwar Singh Tekam Versus RE8PONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others. W.P. (3) No. 61 7/2012 PETITIONER Dhaniram Dhurve ‘K Versus
‘K Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others. WP. (3) No. 61 8/201 2
PETiTlONER Santosh Kumar Tekam Versus
RE$PONDENT$ State of Chhattisgarh and others.
WP. (S) No. 619/2012
PETITIONER Jaisingh Para8te Versus RESPONDENT$ State of Chhattisgarh and others.
W.P. (5) No. 620/201 2 PETITIONER Ashwani Kumar Shrivas Versus RESPONDENT$ State of Chhattisgarh and others. W.P. (S) No. 621/2012 PETlTiONER Rajkumar Checham Versus
RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others.
W.P. (S) No. 622/201 2
PETITIONER Vishnu Kumar Shvam Versus
/RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others.
3/
WP. (S) No. 623/2012
PETlTiONER Ramaavtar Patel
Versus
RE$PONDENTS State 0f Chhattisgarh and others.
WP. (S} No. 624/2012
PETWIONER Kanta Kumar Dhurve
Versus
RESPGNDENW State of Chhattisgarh and others. WP. {S} No. 6251’201 2
PETITIONER
Santram Masram
Versus
Versus w. RE$PONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others.
WP. (S) No. 6281201 2
PETmONER Jhooi Singh Dhurve Versus
RESPONDENT$ $tate of Chhattisgarh and others. And
W.P. (3) No. 62$I201 2
PETITI0NER Bhagvan Singh Shyam
Versus
RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others.
Shri Abdu! Wahab Khan. counsei for the respective petitioners. Shri $atish Gupta, GA. for the State.
WRIT PETiTiON UNDER ARTICLE 226i227 OF THE CONSTITUTIQN CF INDm
ORAL $RDER
(8/02l2012)
The petitioners in the above writ petitions were working as instructor in the We. Q‘qi Wate: (N.R.B.c./R.B.c.)sometimesinthe year2005-2006and according to them they were working reguiariy for the iast 5~6 years, however upon up gradation of the said centers as; Primary School, their servicee have been discontinued and the respondent/State/Panchayat are proceeding ahead to appoint regular Shiksha Karmi in the said Primary School. (2) Prayers have been made in these petitions that the petitioners be ailowed to eontinue in the newty upgi'adedfopened Primary $chools and they be absorbed on
Kll"
Qwx
the post of Shiksha Karmi. it has, also been prayed that the petitioners be granted preferenceorseniorityintheappointmentofShikshaKarmi. (3) in none 0f the petitions the ietter of appointment has been annexed. EXP-1 is a iist of persons working as instructor in different N.R.B.C‘/R.B.C. centers within the area under the control of Block Education Officer-cum-Biock Coordinator; Pandariya‘ District Kabirdham. In column-4 of the iist the date of appointment is mentioned as 2007 to 2009 and not 2005-2006 as claimed by the writ petitioners. (4) Petitioners have not med any document to demonstrate as to at what stage the government has decided to ciose these N.R.B.C./R.BAC. centers and further to discontinue their services.
(5) in the absence of letter of appointment having been annexed with the writ petitions it is ditFicuit to appreciate as to what were the terms and conditions of appointment any whether at the time of their appointment the competent authority/any officer of the government had extended any promise to the petitioners that in the event the N.R.B.C./R.B.C. centers getconverted into Primary Schooi they shalt be considered for absorption. it is settled law that the writ courts cannot direct regularization or absorption or permanent continuance on a post when the initial appointment is not in accordance with the constitutional scheme. (6) Here the word initial appointment would mean appointment on the cadre on which the absorption is sought whereas the petitioners were never appointed as Shiksha Karmi, but they were appointed as instructor. it is also settled that any relaxation or preference has to be granted by the State Government under a poiicy decision and the courts are not competent to extend any such benefit de hors the rules or scheme framed by the government in this regard. (7) Relying on the judgment in the matter of 5ecretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of $tate of Rajasthan and others Vs. Daya Lai and others, (201 1) 2 SCC 429 has held thus in paragraph 12:-
“12. We may at the outset refer to the foliowing well~settled principles relating
to regularization and parity in pay, relevant in the context of these appeals:
(i) The High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue directions for regularization, absorption or permanentcontinuance,unlesstheemployeesclaiming regularization had been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open competitive process, against sanctioned vacant posts. The equality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16 should be scrupulously followed and Courts should issue a direction for regularization of sen/ices of an employee /not which would be violative of the constitutional scheme. While
, ,.\V:"'),/
f5?
(ii)
(iii)
something that is irregular for want of compNance with cne of the elements in the process of seiection which does not go to the root of the process, can be regularized, back door entries, appointments, contrary to the constitutionat scheme and/or appointment of ineligibie candidates cannot be reguiarized. Mere continuation of sen/ice by a temporary or ad hoc or daily-wage employee, under cover of some interim orders of the court, would not confer upon him any right to be absorbed into service, as such service “litigious would be employment”. Even temporary, ad hoc or dailywage service for a long number of years, let alone service for one or two years, will not entitle such employee to claim regularization, if he is not working against a sanctioned postSympathyand sentiment carinot be ground for passing any order of regularisation in the absence of a legal right, Even where a scheme is formulated for regularisation with a cut—off date (that is a scheme providing that personswho had put in a specified number of years of service and continuing in employment as on the cut-off date), it is not possible to others who were appointed subsequent to the cut—off date, to claim or contend that the scheme should be applied to them by extending the cut-off date or seek a direction for framing of fresh schemes providing for successive cut—oft dates.
(8) in view of the above, this court is unable to agree with the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners.The petitionsarebereftofanysubstance, they are accordingly dismissed.
(9) At this stage learned counsel would submit that they have filed a representation Annexure P-2 before the Secretary of School Education Department Director, Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Raipur, however no decision has been /and taken by the State Government in this regard.
¢} , L// l/
(6/
(10) Without commenting anything on the petitioners right to submit a representation, this court is of the opinion that the petitioners may pursue their representation and the competent authority may decide the same in accordance with taw expeditiousiy,
(11) With the above observation, the writ petitions stand dismissed.
x Sd//Prashant Kumar Misht'a Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can direct regularization or absorption of petitioners who were appointed as instructors and not Shiksha Karmis.
Whether petitioners are entitled to preference or seniority in appointment of Shiksha Karmi without an appointment letter annexed.
Whether courts can direct regularization when initial appointment was not in accordance with constitutional scheme.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. UmadeviRelied on¶47
Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Daya Lai and othersRelied on¶47
State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Daya Lai and others, (2011) 2 SCC 429 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Narsottam Meravi and others
State of Chhattisgarh
Prashant Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
