Disposed

Poonam Sharma and Anr. v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC4 Aug 2011CW/5445/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A common order disposed of multiple writ petitions challenging an order discontinuing contractual resource teachers and caregivers. The court upheld the discontinuation of caregivers lacking required qualifications but allowed continuation of resource teachers under new terms, dismissing the claim for regularization.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; Resource Teachers continued without agency recruitment; Caregivers with Resource Teacher qualifications continued; no regularization or salary for summer vacation granted.

Poonam Sharma and Anr. Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Education and Admissions | Rajasthan HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER

¶3

1.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 7178/2011 Radha Rani Vs State of Rajasthan & ors

¶4

2.SB Civil Writ Petition No.5445/2011 Poonam Sharma & anr Vs State of Rajasthan & ors

¶5

3.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 5442 /2011

¶6

Sunil Kumar Sharma & Vs State of Rajasthan & ors

¶7

4.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 5443 /2011 Narendra Sharma & anr Vs State of Rajasthan & ors

¶8

5.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 5444 /2011 Manju Sharma & anr Vs State of Rajasthan & ors

¶9

6.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 5446/2011 Ram Rai Choudhary & anr Vs State of Rajasthan & ors

¶10

7.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 5447 /2011 Seema Devi & anr Vs State of Rajasthan & ors

¶11

8.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 5448/2011

¶12

Ravi Shankar Sharma & anr Vs State of Rajasthan & ors

¶13

9.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 5449/2011 Priyanka Solanki & anr Vs State of Rajasthan & ors

¶14

10.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 5450/2011 Priyanka Tiwari & anr Vs State of Rajasthan & ors

¶15

11.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 5451 /2011 Dhanraj Sharma & anr Vs State of Rajasthan & ors

¶16

12.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 5734/2011

¶17

Krishna Kant Sharma & anr Vs State of Rajasthan & ors

¶18

13.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 6648 /2011

¶19

Jugal Kishore Avasthi & anr Vs State of Rajasthan & ors

¶20

14.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 6649/2011 Shiv Kumar Nagar & anr Vs State of Rajasthan & ors

¶21

15.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 7632 /2011

¶22

Raj Kumar Garwa & ors Vs State of Rajasthan & ors

¶23

¶24

16.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 7634/2011 Smt Raj Kumari Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan & ors

¶25

17.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 6978/2011 Pawan Sharma & ors Vs State of Rajasthan & ors

¶26

18.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 7275/2011 Surendra Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan & ors

¶27

19.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 6647/2011 Bhavnendra Sharma & anr Vs State of Rajasthan & ors

¶28

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 7276/2011 Nityendra Kumar Sharma & ors Vs State of Rajasthan & ors

¶29

21.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 7277/2011 Ajay Nagar & ors Vs State of Rajasthan & ors

¶30

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 7291/2011 Rakesh Kumar Patel & ors Vs State of Rajasthan & ors

¶31

23.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 7365 /2011 Suresh Kumar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan & ors

¶32

24.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 7373 /2011 Vishnu Prajapat & ors Vs State of Rajasthan & ors

¶33

25.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 7375/2011 Sudheer Sharma & ors Vs State of Rajasthan & ors

¶34

26.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 7378/2011 Sanjay Kumar & ors Vs State of Rajasthan & ors

¶35

27.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 7379/2011 Mukesh Chand Kasotiya & ors Vs State of Rajasthan & ors

¶36

28.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 7381/2011 Sarit Kumar Vashishtha & ors Vs State of Rajasthan & ors

¶37

29.SB Civil Writ Petition No.7490 /2011 Kiran Prasad Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan & ors

¶38

30.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 6046/2011 Suresh Chand Verma & ors Vs State of Rajasthan & ors

¶39

31.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 6047/2011 Narendra Sharma & ors Vs State of Rajasthan & ors

¶40

¶41

32.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 6048/2011 Babu Lal Sahu & ors Vs State of Rajasthan & ors

¶42

33.SB Civil Writ Petition No.6219 /2011 Smt Hemlata Sharma & ors Vs State of Rajasthan & ors

¶43

34.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 7138/2011 Smt Khushbu Gauttam & ors Vs State of Rajasthan & ors

¶44

35.SB Civil Writ Petition No.7724 /2011

¶45

Smt Sunil Kumari & ors Vs State of Rajasthan & ors

¶46

36.SB Civil Writ Petition No.6375/2011 Jatin Kumar Pareek & ors Versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶47

37.SB Civil Writ Petition No.8149/2011

¶48

Nutan Kumar Sharma Versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶49

38.SB Civil Writ Petition No.6587/2011 Dashrath Hansiwal Versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶50

39.SB Civil Writ Petition No.6512/2011 Narpat Singh & ors Versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶51

40.SB Civil Writ Petition No.6436/2011 Jitendra Kumar Sharma Versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶52

41.SB Civil Writ Petition No.6437/2011

¶53

Praveen Kumar Kumawat Versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶54

42.SB Civil Writ Petition No.5660/2011

¶55

Dinesh Chand Meena & ors Versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶56

43.SB Civil Writ Petition No.6613/2011

¶57

Suresh Chand Saini & ors Versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶58

44.SB Civil Writ Petition No.5735/2011 Madhusudan Udainiya & ors Versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶59

45.SB Civil Writ Petition No.6508/2011 Anjana Sharma & anr Versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶60

46.SB Civil Writ Petition No.6509/2011 Yograj Meena & ors Versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶61

47.SB Civil Writ Petition No.6548/2011 Shivraj Meena & ors Versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶62

¶63

48.SB Civil Writ Petition No.6550/2011 Babita Kumari & ors Versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶64

4.8.2011

¶65

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI

¶66

Mr SS Hora Mr Raghunandan Sharma Mr RP Saini Mr SK Singodiya Mr Arvind Sharma Mr Rameshwar Sharma Mr Rajesh Vashishtha Mr DK Bhardwaj - for the petitioners Mr SK Gupta, Sr Adv with Mr Rajneesh Gupta Mr Ganesh Meena, Government Counsel Ms Priyanka Pareek, Dy Government Counsel – for respondents

¶67

BY THE COURT:

¶68

This bunch of writ petitions involves similar controversy thus are heard together and decided by this common order.

¶69

Petitioners were appointed on contract basis to work as Resource Teacher or Caregiver in Sarva Shiksha Abhiyaan. They have been engaged through placement agency thus their term was extended from time to time. By virtue of the aforesaid, an artificial break is given to them every year. These writ petitions were accordingly filed to seek redressal of grievances.

¶70

Learned counsel for petitioners submit that Sarva Shiksha Abhiyaan is a project started under National Education

¶71

¶72

Policy and is being implemented by Rajasthan Primary Education Council. The project was launched by the Government of India for achievement of universalisation of education within time frame as mandated by 86^th Amendment of the Constitution. The project aforesaid has been extended from time to time and presently it is extended upto 2017 though it is expected to be extended again looking to the object sought to be achieved.

¶73

Vide the impugned order dated 22.2.2011, respondent

¶74

No.2 issued directions to all the District Co-ordinators that Resource Teachers and Caregivers should be continued till 15.5.2011 and from 1.7.2011 new Resource Teachers and Caregivers should be given appointment. Aforesaid is nothing but to replace one set of contractual employees by another in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner. Petitioners should be continued till the end of the project without interruption in service and even if they have to be discontinued on account of appointment of regularly selected candidates then it should be by adopting the method of 'last come, first go'. The termination of petitioners from 15.5.2011 should accordingly be held to be illegal.

¶75

The aforesaid view was taken by this court in the case of Mooli Devi versus State of Rajasthan reported in 2010 WLC (4)

¶76

¶77

Rajasthan 334 and in the case of Vidyarthi Mitra decided in bunch of writ petitions led by petition No.4652/2009 vide its judgment dated 8.5.2009. Petitioners should accordingly be considered even for regularisation, if project is continued indefinitely.

¶78

Per contra, learned counsel for respondents submit that petitioners' appointment is purely on contract basis thus they have no right to continue. However, looking the changed circumstances, respondents are not going to replace the petitioners working on the post of Resource Teacher. So far as petitioners working on the post of Caregiver are concerned, they are not going to be continued looking to the change in the policy so approved by the state government. Post of Caregiver is no more required for the project hence, aforesaid decision has been taken, however, those Caregivers having requisite qualification for the post of Resource Teacher would be continued till the project ends or selected candidates by any source are made available to the respondents. Accordingly, respondents have no intention to continue Caregivers while the project is implemented by the respondent No.2. Since appointment of the petitioners is on contractual basis in a project, they have no right to claim for regularisation. Aforesaid issue has already been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “Mohd. Abdul Kadir & anr versus Director General of Police, Assam & ors” reported in 2009

¶79

¶80

(6) SCC 611. In the aforesaid judgment, Hon'ble Apex Court held that a claim for continuance or regularisation cannot be made by an employee for another programme or scheme. Accordingly, petitioners' continuance may be made on condition as given above and, that too, subject to their satisfactory service. With the aforesaid clarification if the petitioners are continued and writ petitions are disposed of, respondents have no objection.

¶81

I have considered rival submissions of learned

¶82

counsel for the parties and perused record of the case besides going through the judgments cited at the Bar.

¶83

Since the respondents have agreed to continue the petitioners working as Resource Teacher and even Caregiver having requisite qualification of Resource Teacher, the controversy comes to a narrow compass. This is more so when respondents have even agreed not to engage the petitioners through placement agency but with a clarification that they would not be entitled for wages for summer vacation. But, for other vacation, they would be entitled and paid wages as per rules. In view of aforesaid, the order dated 22.2.2011 is not likely to be given effect to hence, all these writ petitions are disposed of with following directions -

¶84

¶85

1 Impugned order dated 22.2.2011 passed by the respondents is set aside to the extent of a direction to discontinue petitioners and to engage new persons on contractual basis for those petitioners who are working on the post of Resource Teacher.

¶86

For the post of Caregiver also, aforesaid order would not be given effect to if petitioners possess requisite qualification of the post of Resource Teacher, as agreed by the respondents.

¶87

The Caregivers, who are not in possession of requisite qualification of the post of Resource Teacher, will have no right to continue as the scheme/ project has been changed requiring no Caregiver. It may, however, clarified that if respondents will try to engage new persons to undertake the work of Caregiver with different nomenclature then Caregivers would be given preference to continue.

¶88

Respondents will not engage the petitioners through placement agency, accordingly, they will be continued till life of the project but then respondents would be entitled to replace the petitioners by regularly selected appointees. While replacing the petitioners, principle of 'last come, first go' will be applied at district level.

¶89

¶90

The respondents would be at liberty to discontinue petitioner/s if their services are not found satisfactory or they misconduct while discharging the duties but after applying principles of natural justice.

¶91

Respondents will pay due salary to the petitioners within a month from the date of receipt of copy of this order and will further regularly pay the salary for the period petitioner/s work.

¶92

Petitioners would not be entitled for salary of summer vacation but would be entitled for salary for other vacation as per rules. Aforesaid arrangement has been agreed by both the parties.

¶93