A single judge dismissed multiple writ petitions challenging the discontinuation of services of Jan Bhagidari Teachers. The court held that since appointments were made by Samitis without Rules under Article 309, no legitimate expectation of absorption existed.
No direction to appoint petitioners as Shiksha Karmis or retain services.
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.
INLTHEHIGH C.OURT OP CHHATISGARH AT BILASPUR
F'
PETITIONER
W.PNO 2^81~8 / 06
•»-9fai :Nl?6
RAIPURfC.G.)
v/s
..ff
RESPONDENTS
(1)
€"<?:.^-1^ IM»
,^
^.....^•&ss"
^"-^i1^'
^••1>'
(2)
i-J'S'
••^^
(3)
^•^ ,,t"^I& ^.v^^
4)
^<lrB
'•'s^^.:..--
PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER SUITABLE WRIT
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
W.P.No. 5092 of 2006
PETITIONERS
Gurucharan Sahu and another.
Versus
RESPONDENTS
State of Chhattisgarh and others.
W.P.No.2397of2006
PETITIONERS Jan-Bhagidari Shikshak Sangh Dhamtari Unit and others
Versus
RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others.
W.P.No. 2818 of 2006
PETITIONER
Ankur Ram Baghel.
Versus
RESPONDENTS
State of Chhattisgarh and others.
W.P.No.2841of2006
PETITIONERS
Shashkiya Unnayan Shala Shikshak
Sangh, Chhattisgarh and another.
Versus
RESPONDENTS
The State of Chhattisgarh and another.
W.P.No. 3675 of 2006
PETITIONERS
S.R. Sahu and others.
Versus
RESPONDENTS
State of Chhattisgarh and others.
W.P.No. 5720 of 2006
PETITIONERS
Budheshwar Lal Dewangan and others.
Versus
The State of Chhattisgarh and others.
RESPONDENTS
AND
W.P.No. 5748 of 2006
PETITIONERS Santosh Kumar Bairagi and others.
Versus
RESPONDENTS
The State of Chhattisgarh and others.
Shri Awadh Tripathi, Shri D.N. Prajapati, counsel for the respective petitioners. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Dy. Advocate General with Shri Rakesh Jha, Govt.
Advocate for the State.
SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J. ORAL ORDER (05/12/2013)
Petitioners have preferred these writ petitions for direction to the respondents to appoint them or the members of the petitioner-Association who are working as Jan Bhagidari Shikshak as Shiksha Karmi of different grades as per their qualification. They have also prayed for issuance of direction to the State Government not to upgrade/promote the Primary, Middle and High Schools as the Govt. Middle, 1-ligh and Higher Secondary Schools with further prayer to not to discontinue the services of the Jan Bhagidari Teachers in the garb of re-upgradation of the schools.
^
"~ £?'
continued as Jan Bhagidari Teachers and later on the Schools have been re-upgraded by the State Govt. they have legitimate expectation of continuation of sen/ice and their discontinuance or non-consideration for absorption as Shiksha Karmi amounts to violation of principles enshrined in Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. According to them the petitioners were selected by the concerned Jan Bhagidari Samiti pursuant to a selection process, therefore, they cannot be treated as backdoor entrant, therefore, when the Schools were upgraded and taken over by the Govt. the respondents should have taken over/absorbed the services of the petitioners.
-^
which was extended for further Academic Session in some cases. When the State Govt. decided to upgrade the Schools regular Teachers were appointed and the services of the petitioners were automatically discontinued.
representation filed bythe petitioners.
Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether petitionsers appointed as Jan Bhagidari Teachers have a legitimate expectation to be absorbed as Shiksha Karmis upon upgrading of schools.
Whether the State Government is under a constitutional obligation to regularize Jan Bhagidari Teachers under Articles 14 and 16.
Whether a Jan Bhagidari Samiti has the authority to appoint teachers under Article 309 of the Constitution.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Secretary, State of Kamataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) & othersReferred¶73
(2006) 4 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Ankur Ram Baghel
State of Chhattisgarh
Prashant Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
