Dismissed

Shashkiya Unnayan Shala Shi.SANGHandANR. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC5 Dec 2013WP/2841/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single bench order dismissed multiple writ petitions challenging the State Government's appointment of Shiksha Karmis after upgrading Jan Bhagidari schools. The Court held that petitioners had no legal right to continuance or absorption as their initial appointments were not made under valid constitutional rules.

What did the court decide?

Directions to appoint petitioner teachers as Shiksha Karmis were refused.

Shashkiya Unnayan Shala Shi.SANGHandANR. Vs… — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2013)

¶1

s-\00'
^L%^.
'S' ^ ^^-3^- "•- ^.'? ^-s"y !-UT 3 u
-tt-^>-"",.,.T':"r"; ^•^sy:^,,,^-V V. b,...--
n4vs?<-; \ *:..'••"
^<ese^u..^g-i'""'4^
IN THE mGH CQURT OF JUDICATDRE AT BILASFUR
CHHATTISGARH •
.^ff^ri
WRIT PETITION. N0. OF 2006
BETWEEN

¶2

Shashkiya Unnayan Shala Shikshak Sangh, Chhattisgarii, Head
OfBce at H.No.101, Bazar Chowk, Dharainshala Bhawan,
Sarsivan, Tahal Bila^arh Dtetrict Raipur (CG) Through its
President (Rural) Amit Pandey S/o Shri Kaushal Pandey, aged
about 29 years, R/o At Post Malhar Tahsil Masturi District
BUaspur (CG), Presentfy working as Teacher/Head Master at
/^
Giris Middle School Malfaar runs by the Pancbayait Evam
-/' ;i
^ Janbha^dari Sannti Masturi (CG).
2. Anait Pandey S/o Shri Kaushal Pandey, aged about 29 years, R/o
At Post Malhar Tahsil Masturi District Bilaspur (CG), Presently
working as Teacher/Head Master at Girls Middle School Malhar
runs by the Panchayat E^reun Janbhagdari Samiti Masturi (CG)
and R-esident (Rural) of Shashfcya Unnayan Shala Shikshak
sss^itigh, Chhatti^arh.

¶3

FETITIONERS
AND
"'v-^f^:":^', -..,-•
- 1. TlieStateofChhattis^rh,
Through the Secretary Departinent of School EMucation ,
Chhatti^arh, Maatralay D.K.S. Buflding, Raipur (C.G.)
/ 2. TheStateofChhattis^rh,
Throu^i the Secretary Departinent of Kinchayat Evani Gramin
Vikas ViJily^ , Chhattisgarii, D.K.S. BuUdmg, I&upur (C.G.)
^»——^-c^u'-
RESFOHDENTS
WRI 3^MUDH@ER ARnCIS S»6/227OF COasnTDTOOK OF

¶4

\ ^

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶6

W.P.No. 5092 of 2006

¶7

PETITIONERS Gurucharan Sahu and another.

¶8

Versus

¶9

RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others.

¶10

W.P.No.2397of2006

¶11

PETITLONERS Jan-Bhagidari Shikshak Sangh Dhamtari

Unit and others

Versus

RESPONDENTS

State of Chhattisgarh and others.

W.P.No.2818of2006

PETITIONER

Ankur Ram Baghel.

Versus

RESPONDENTS

State of Chhattisgarh and others.

¶22

W.P. No.2841 of 2006

¶23

PETITIONERS

¶24

Shashkiya Unnayan Shala Shikshak

¶25

Sangh, Chhattisgarh and another.

¶26

Versus

¶27

RESPONDENTS

¶28

The State of Chhattisgarh and another.

¶29

W.P.No. 3675 of 2006

¶30

PETITIONERS

¶31

S.R. Sahu and others.

¶32

Versus

¶33

RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others.

¶34

W.P.No. 5720 of 2006

¶35

PETITIONERS

¶36

Budheshwar Lal Dewangan and others.

Versus

;•./

/L' ^

2^-

RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh and others.

¶42

AND

¶43

W.P.No. 5748 of 2006

¶44

PETITIONERS Santosh Kumar Bairagi and others.

¶45

Versus

¶46

RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh and others.

¶47

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.

¶48

SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J. ORAL ORDER (05/12/2013)

¶49

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, High 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.

¶50

¶51

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were appointed as Jan Bhagidari Teachers by the respective school where they worked for a substantial length of time and in due course some of the Jan Bhagidari Schools were also upgraded, however, after a policy decision taken by the State Govt., the Jan Bhagidari Schools were again sought to be upgraded as Govt. Middle, High and Higher Secondary School, the State Govt. or the respective Panchayats are making fresh appointments of Shiksha Karmis ignoring the just and lawful claim of the petitioners. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, since they

Nn^

£?'

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 service 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 bythe Govt. the respondents should have taken over/absorbed the services of the petitioners.

¶56

Per contra, learned Deputy Advocate General would submit that the State Govt. has not framed any Rules under Article 309 of Constitution of India nor any administrative instructions or guidelines having the force of law has been issued for appointment of the Jan Bhagidari Teachers. He would submit that each of the Jan Bhagidari Teacher was appointed at local level by the Jan Bhagidari Samiti which is not a legal entity, therefore petitioners have no right of continuance on the post.

¶57

On perusal of the papers annexed with the writ petitions, it would appear that Jan Bhagidari Teachers have been appointed at the Panchayat Level Jan Bhagidari Shiksha Samiti and for making such appointment State Govt. has neither enacted any Rules under Article 309 of the Constitution nor any executive instruction has been issued. It appears in the year 2002-03 the State Govt. permitted arrangement of Teachers at the local level by the Jan Bhagidari Samiti, however, no further instruction was issued as to the manner of appointment or the procedure to be followed for making the arrangement. The Teachers so appointed were paid honorarium and their appointment was for a particular Academic Session

¶58

\ ^»

¶59

¶60

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 petitionere were automatically discontinued.

¶61

Indisputably, petitioners have not been appointed by the State Govt. or any Panchayat. Their appointments have been made by the Jan Bhagidari Samiti at the local level. Some of the appointment orders annexed with the writ petitions would reveal that the appointment is not made under any Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India or any other statutory scheme. The argument that the petitioners have legitimate expectation of their continuance in the service is without any substance because there was no promise by the State Govt. or any instrumentatities of the State at any point of time regarding their continuance or absorption as Teachers. Moreover, their initial appointment was not made under any constitutional scheme.

¶62

In the matter of Secretary, State of Kamataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) & others {(2006) 4 SCC 1), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that writ Court cannot direct regularization or absorption of any daily wage or adhoc or temporary employee.

¶63

Petitioners have failed to demonstrate violation of any constitutional or statutory right.

¶64

Thus, the writ petitions being bereft of any substance it deserves to be and are hereby dismissed, however, the dismissal of the writ petition would not come in the way of the respondents, if they desire to take up the representation flled by the petitionere. -— —-—--

¶65

Sd//Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge

¶66

¶67

Shashkiya Unnayan Shala Shi.SANGHandANR. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashkiya Unnayan Shala Shi.SANGHandANR. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Sarla Karmahe Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Ku.Peeyusha Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Sumita Voditelwar and Another Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Puran Kishore Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Jan Bhagidari Shikshak Sangh and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Ankur Ram Baghel Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.