High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 4781/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN J U D G M E N T AND O R D E R (CAV) This order will dispose of W.P.(C) Nos. 6666/2010, 6842/2010, and 4781/2 011. 2. Facts and reliefs sought for in the three writ petitions being i dentical, those were heard together and are being disposed of by this common ord er. 3. Facts of the three cases may be briefly noted. W.P.(C) No.6842/2 010 being argued as the lead case, facts of the said case are narrated at the ou tset. W.P.(C) No.6842/2010 4. Twenty three petitioners have joined together and have jointly f iled the present writ petition. Petitioners are Assistant teachers in LP and ME Schools, the details of which have been furnished in the writ petition. All the petitioners were appointed prior to provincialisation of their respective school s. However, at the time of provincialisation, their names were not included in t he list of teachers whose services were provincialised. Thus, they became what c ame to be known as (cid:28)dropped teachers (cid:29).
Facts
5. Being aggrieved by the non-provincialisation of their services, petitioners approached this Court by filing writ petition. Similar writ petition s were filed by other dropped teachers. During the pendency of the said batch of writ petitions, Government of Assam in the Education (Elementary and Secondary) Department issued notification dated 13-01-2003 laying down certain criteria to be adopted with prospective effect for adjustment of dropped teachers. Amongst others, the following conditions were laid down :- (i) The teachers should have put in at least two years of continuous service immediately preceding the taking over of the concerned schools by the Governmen t, (ii) e concerned District Elementary Education Officer / Inspector of Schools, Appointment of the dropped teachers should have been duly approved by th The appointment of dropped teachers by the Managing Committee should hav (iii) e been commensurate with the enrolment of students in the school at the time of provincialisation.
Legal Reasoning
3) of the Rules, teachers in venture schools may be retained at the time of prov incialisation provided such teachers had put in atleast two years of continuous service immediately preceding the taking over of the school. Following judgment of this Court in Jiban Ch. Deka, High Power Committee was constituted to examine all pending cases of dropped teachers. List of dropped teachers prepared were p ublished in the leading newspapers of the State. Government of Assam in the Educ ation Department on due verification of the reports of the High Power Committee found that names of teachers who did not complete the mandatory requirement of t wo years of service as Assistant teacher in their respective schools prior to pr ovincialisation, which is the requirement of Rule 5(3) of the Rules, were includ ed in the list of dropped teachers. Accordingly, the State filed review petition for review of the judgment in Jiban Ch. Deka. In terms of the order of this Cou rt dated 11-12-2009 passed in the review petition, State Government issued notif ication dated 17-07-2010 relaxing the provision of Rule 5(3) of the Rules in res pect of 130 dropped teachers as a one time measure. Cases of the writ petitioner s were rejected by the High Power Committee as they did not have the requisite t wo years of service prior to provincialisation of the schools. Notification date d 17-07-2010 was issued to deal with an extra-ordinary situation as stated in th e review petition. Rule 5(3) was relaxed in respect of 130 school teachers as on e time measure. Any further relaxation of the said Rule will open the flood gate of ineligible teachers appointed by the Managing Committee to claim appointment as dropped teachers. State Government cannot relax Rule 5(3) of the Rules any f urther. During the course of hearing, petitioners have filed an addition 17. al affidavit mentioning the dates of their appointment and provincialisation of the respective schools. W.P.(C) No.6666/2010 18. Petitioner was the third Assistant teacher in the concerned scho ol. When the school was provincialised, services of the other two teachers were taken over by the Government excluding the petitioner. According to the petition er, his case was forwarded to the High Power Committee for consideration but he was not informed of any decision taken by the High Power Committee in this regar d. Aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 19. Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education (Elementary) Department has filed an affidavit dated 19-05-2011. Stand taken in the affidavit is that High Power Committee after due scrutiny finalized detaile d statement of dropped teachers but observed that there was no dropped teacher i n LP Schools. This Court in the judgment and order dated 01-03-2007 in Tapan Kr. Das directed the Government to re-verify the cases of dropped teachers of L P Schools. Accordingly, the Government again constituted a High Power Committee for examination of all pending cases of dropped teachers in provincialised LP Sc hools. High Power Committee after due scrutiny found 192 teachers as dropped tea chers of LP Schools. In so far the case of the petitioner is concerned, it was p laced before the High Power Committee on 18-11-2010. His name was not recommende d by the High Power Committee as he had not completed two years of continuous se rvice immediately preceding the taking over of his school by the Government. Petitioner in his re-joinder affidavit stated that his case was 20. duly forwarded by the district authorities to the Government. Placing reliance o n the decision of this Court in the case of Jiban Ch. Deka, he seeks provinciali sation of his service. W.P.(C) No.4781/2011 21. The four petitioners are Assistant teachers of LP Schools. Their services were not provincialised at the time of provincialisation of their scho ols. Thus they became dropped teachers. 22. They have based their case like the petitioners of W.P.(C) No.68 42/2010. The only difference in their cases is that they were informed vide sepa rate communications dated 31-03-2011 by the Under Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education (Elementary) Department that their names were placed before th e High Power Committee. Since as per Rule they had not completed two years of co ntinuous service immediately preceding the taking over of the concerned schools by the Government, therefore their names were not recommended. 23. elied on the departmental affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No.6842/2010. Respondents have not filed any affidavit in this case but have r 24. Heard Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned Counsel for the petitioners in W. P.(C) No.6842/2010, Mr. S. Nath for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.6666/2010 and M r. F.U. Borbhuiya for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.4781/2011. Also heard Mr. M. R. Pathak and Mr. B. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, Assam for the respondents in all the cases. Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned Counsel leading the argument for the pe 25. titioners submits that the impugned action of the respondents in not provinciali sing the services of the petitioners by relaxing the requirement of two years co ntinuous service on the date of taking over of the concerned schools, which was done in the case of 130 teachers similarly placed like the petitioners as a one time measure, is clearly arbitrary and discriminatory, thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Learned Counsel submits that after the subsequ ent judgment of this Court in Luleswar Hazarika, the Court had made it abundantl y clear that if there are any cases of dropped teachers of LP / ME Schools pendi ng with which the said proceeding was concerned, the High Power Committee should carry out similar exercise in terms of notification dated 16-07-2010. Therefore , there can be no justification to deny the benefit of provincialisation to the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners had not completed two years of co ntinuous service at the time of provincialisation of the schools. 26. Mr. M.R. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel on the other hand subm its that the Government is bound by the statute. The requirement of two years co ntinuous service as on the date of provincialisation to entitle a teacher to cla im provincialisation of service is a statutory requirement under Rule 5(3) of th e Rules. The State had relaxed the said requirement in respect of 130 dropped te achers as a one time measure to meet the extra-ordinary situation arising out of the Court order in Jibon Ch. Deka which was because of the failure to produce t he statutory Rules before the Court and the concession given by the State Counse l for modification of condition No.1 in notification dated 13-01-2003 to include all serving teachers whose services were dropped at the time of provincialisati on, in the process of provincialisation. As it was a one time measure, State is not in a position to go for further relaxation as it may open the flood-gate of ineligible teachers appointed by the Managing Committee to claim provincialisati on of their services as dropped teachers. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petitions. He has also produced the record. 27. In his brief reply, Mr. Saikia, learned Counsel for the petition ers submits that the review petition filed by the State for review of the judgme nt in Jibon Ch. Deka was closed as not pressed and, therefore, the judgment in J ibon Ch. Deka as explained by the subsequent judgment in Luleswar Hazarika still stands. As such, the State cannot deny provincialisation of the services of the petitioners on the plea that they did not have two years of continuous service immediately preceding provincialisation of the concerned schools. 28. been perused. Submissions made have been considered. Record produced has also 29. Before proceeding further, it will be useful to briefly refer to the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules. The Act has been enacted to p rovide for provincialisation of elementary education in the State of Assam and t o bring the teachers and staff of elementary schools under the management and co ntrol of the State Government. The Rules have been framed in exercise of the pow ers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India to regu late the recruitment and conditions of service of teachers of the elementary sch ools which have been provincialised under the Act. Rule 5 of the Rules lays down the conditions for taking over of elementary schools. In the present case, we a re concerned with Sub-rule (3) of Rule 5, which reads as under :- (cid:28)(3) The teachers in venture School may be retained at the time of taking over i f they possess the minimum qualification and age for recruitment provided that s uch teachers have put in at least two years continuous service immediately prece ding the taking over of the School and provided further that the prescribed rati o of students and teacher is maintained in the School. (cid:29) 30. Rule 7 deals with power of Government to dispense with or relax any Rule. It provides that where the Government is satisfied that the question o f any of these Rules may cause undue hardship in any particular case, it may dis pense with or relax the requirement of that Rule to such extent and subject to s uch conditions as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner. 31. It is in the above context that the notification dated 13-01-200 3 is required to be construed, which was issued to streamline the procedure of a djustment of dropped teachers. Condition No.1 of the said notification dated 13- 01-2003 provided that the teachers must have put in atleast two years of continu ous service immediately preceding the taking over of the concerned schools by th e Government. The said condition was as per the requirement of Rule 5(3) of the Rules. 32. However, this aspect was not placed before the Court and the Sta te Counsel also agreed to the submission of the Counsel for the petitioners that condition No.1 may be read as covering the cases of all dropped teachers in ser vice as on the date of provincialisation of the concerned schools. The relevant portion of the order of this Court in Jibon Ch. Deka is as under :-
Arguments
The aforesaid batch of writ petitions were finally disposed of b 6. y this Court by common judgment and order dated 01-09-2003, which has since been reported in 2008 (3) GLT 229 (Jiban Ch. Deka and Ors. -Vs- State of Assam and O rs.). This Court took note of the above notification dated 13-01-2003 and as agr eed to by learned counsel for both the sides, condition No.1 was modified to cov er cases of all dropped teachers in service as on the date of provincialisation of the concerned school. Likewise, the requirement of approval of the appointmen ts of dropped teachers by the concerned authorities of the Education Department as per condition No.2 was modified by production of any document acknowledging r endering of service by dropped teachers. Accordingly, this Court directed that t he cases of the petitioners in each of the cases should be considered in terms o f the notification dated 13-01-2003 subject to the modifications indicated above . Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam was directed to constitute a High P ower Committee to examine the cases of those petitioners and such other cases as may be sent to the said Committee from time to time by this Court. It was direc ted that the Committee upon due verification of the cases before it shall prepar e district wise list of dropped teachers eligible for regularization in terms of the norms and criteria laid down as per direction of the Court. The eligible pe rsons on being identified, shall be arranged in the district wise lists in order of seniority. Appointments against available posts in each district shall be ma de on the basis of the lists prepared. All the appointments would be prospective but would carry the benefit of past services for the purpose of computation of pensionery benefits. 7. Thereafter, the Government constituted a Screening Committee. Di rections were issued to the district officers to submit lists of dropped teacher s of the concerned districts. In addition, advertisement was issued in the newsp apers requiring the dropped teachers to submit their particulars before the desi gnated authorities. Accordingly, petitioners submitted their particulars. Their names were also included in the lists prepared for the respective districts. Scr eening Committee took their interview on different dates. Thereafter, the High P ower Committee recommended the names of dropped teachers as per notification dat ed 13-01-2003 as modified by the judgment in Jiban Ch. Deka and published the di strict-wise seniority list of dropped teachers. But the names of petitioners did not figure in the said list. 8. Aggrieved by the exclusion of their names, petitioners filed wri t petitions before this Court. Writ petitions were also filed by similarly place d dropped teachers. 9. In the meanwhile, Government of Assam in the Education Departmen t filed a review petition before this Court for review of judgment dated 01-09-2 003 in Jiban Ch. Deka, which was registered as Review Petition No.20/2009. It wa s contended that the provision of Rule 5(3) of the Assam Elementary Education (P rovincialisation) Rules, 1977, which provided that teachers in venture schools m ay be retained subject to their possessing minimum qualification and age and fur ther subject to such teachers putting in atleast two years of continuous service immediately preceding the taking over of the school, was not placed before the Court. It was contended that modification of condition No.1 of the notification dated 13-01-2003 to the extent of including the cases of all dropped teachers se rving at the time of provincialisation of the concerned schools was in conflict with the provision of Rule 5 (3) as mentioned above. 10. This Court in the order dated 04-03-2009 observed that understan ding the requirement of having put in atleast two years of continuous service im mediately preceding the taking over of the concerned schools by the Government t o have been introduced by the Government decision as reflected in the notificati on dated 13-01-2003, the Court with the consent of the parties had directed in p aragraph 4 of the judgment dated 01-09-2003 that instead of condition No.1 as ap pearing in the notification dated 13-01-2003, all the dropped teachers in servic e on the date of provincialisation of the schools should be considered. Acknowle dging that such direction was contrary to the statutory prescription and, theref ore, ought not to have been passed, the Court observed that the said error had o ccurred as the statutory rules to the above effect was not brought to the notice of the Court. The Court, however, took the view that the review prayed for migh t effect the entitlement of several persons who had in the meanwhile been select ed for regularization though they might not have completed two years of service prior to the date of provincialisation of the schools. The Court, therefore, too k the view that the earlier decision regarding modification of condition No.1 of the notification dated 13-01-2003 should be taken as the tentative opinion of t he Court. The State of Assam was directed to place before the Court the names an d particulars of all such dropped teachers who had not completed two years of se rvice as required and yet their names had been included in the list of dropped t eachers eligible for regularization as selected by the High Power Committee. 11. In the subsequent order dated 11-12-2009, the Court recorded tha t an order of the Court in conflict with a statutory provision may require corre ction but there was a human problem associated with the legal question that had arisen in the case. About 133 persons who became eligible for consideration for regularisation as LP and ME school teachers, being dropped teachers, in terms of the judgment dated 01-09-2003 now faced the prospect of being excluded from the process of regularization if the review prayed for was granted. Those persons h ad rendered long years of service and were awaiting their regularization as drop ped teachers for over a decade. The Court observed that a possible remedy to the situation could be the exercise of power by the State Government under Rule 7 o f the aforesaid Rules, if required even as a one time measure. The Court, theref ore, directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Secretary, who should t ake an informed decision in the matter and thereafter place such decision before the Court. 12. Following the above order, an affidavit dated 30-07-2010 was fil ed by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education (Elem entary) Department. In the said affidavit it was stated that a decision was take n to relax the provision of Rule 5(3) of the Assam Elementary Education (Provinc ialisation) Rules, 1977 in respect of 130 dropped teachers of Lower and Upper Pr imary Schools as a one time measure. Alongwith the affidavit, a copy of notifica tion dated 17-07-2010 issued in this regard alongwith the list of 130 teachers w ere enclosed. Accordingly, the Court by order dated 10-08-2010 closed the review petition as not pressed. 13. In the meanwhile, Government had issued another notification dat ed 16-07-2010 reconstituting the High Power Committee for examination of all pen ding cases of dropped teachers of LP / ME / MEM / High Schools / Higher Secondar y Schools including non-teaching staff. 14. The batch of writ petitioners filed by the petitioners and other s came up for consideration before this Court on 16-11-2010. This Court referred to the judgment rendered in Jibon Ch. Deka and a subsequent decision reported i n 2008 (3) GLT 234 (Tapan Kumar Das and Ors. -Vs- State of Assam and Ors.) and d isposed of those cases vide order dated 16-11-2010 by holding that cases of thos e candidates who did not respond to the advertisement issued by the High Power C ommittee should be closed as there cannot be any endless exercise. In respect of those cases rejected by the High Power Committee, reasons of such rejection wer e directed to be communicated to the concerned candidates. If any case of droppe d teachers of LP / ME schools with which the said proceeding was concerned were pending, the High Power Committee was directed to carry out necessary exercise i n terms of the notification dated 16-07-2010. The said decision dated 16-11-2010 is referred to as the decision in the case of Luleswar Hazarika. 15. Grievance of the petitioners is that their cases for provinciali sation were not considered by the Government on the ground that they did not ser ve for two years on the date of provincialisation of the respective schools. Con tention of the petitioners is that pursuant to the order of this Court dated 11- 12-2009 in Review Petition No.20/09, the Government of Assam had considered the cases of similarly placed persons and relaxed the requirement of having two year s service on the date of provincialisation. The Government had regularized the s ervices of those teachers by way of provincialisation by invoking the provision of Rule 7 of the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Rules, 1977 and, therefore, similar relief should also be granted to the petitioners. 16. Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Edu cation (Elementary) Department filed an affidavit on 07-09-2011. Stand taken is that services in elementary schools are regulated by set of Act and Rules calle d the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Act, 1974 (Act) and the Ass am Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Rules, 1977 (Rules). As per Rule 5 (
Decision
(cid:28)(6) In view of the above, this bunch of cases will stand now disposed of with t he following directions: (i) The cases of the petitioners in each of the cases will be considered in acco rdance with the norms, criteria and eligibility conditions prescribed by the pol icy document dated 13-01-2003 subject to the modification in Condition Nos. 1 an d 2, as stated above. (ii) The Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, shall within 7 days from to day, constitute a Committee to examine the cases of the petitioners in the prese nt bunch of cases and such other cases, as may be referred to the said Committee , from time to time, by this Court. As the said Committee will be executing and implementing the policy decision taken by the state, this Court considers it app ropriate to leave it to the discretion of the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam to decide on the composition of the Committee with the suggestion that the Committee may be a high powered committee constituting of 3 members and the present Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education Department may act as th e Member Secretary. (iii) The Committee, upon due verification of the cases before it, shall within 6 months from the date of its constitution, prepare district wise list of (cid:28)stopp ed teachers (cid:29) eligible for regularisation in terms of the norms and criteria laid down as per direction No.1 above. The eligible persons, on being identified, sh all be arranged in the district wise lists, in order of seniority. (iv) Suitable adjustments in the placements assigned in the district wise lists, as may be required, upon consideration of such other cases which may be referre d to the Committee in the future shall be made by the Committee. (v) Appointment against available posts in each district shall be made on the ba sis of the lists prepared. (vi) All appointments made would be prospective but will carry the benefit of pa st services for the purpose of computation of pensionary benefits. (cid:29) 33. When it was found out by the departmental authorities that the a bove direction of this Court relating to condition No.1 of notification dated 13 -01-2003 was in conflict with the statutory provision, the State filed a review petition. As has already been noticed in the earlier part of this judgment, this Court acknowledging the error which occurred in Jibon Ch. Deka, however, took t he view that any review as sought for would effect the entitlement of several pe rsons who had in the meantime been selected for regularisation though they might not have completed two years of service prior to the date of provincialisation of the schools. The Court, therefore, took the view that the directions issued e arlier should be taken as the tentative opinion of the Court. Subsequently, this Court observed that considering the human problem associated with the review pe tition, the possible remedy to the situation could be exercise of the power vest ed in the State Government by Rule 7 of the Rules, if required even as a one tim e measure. 34. The State Government thereafter took the decision to relax the p rovision of Rule 5(3) of the Rules in so far the requirement of having two years of continuous service as on the date of provincialisation was concerned in resp ect of 130 dropped teachers of Lower and Upper Primary Schools as a one time mea sure. This was contained in the Government notification dated 17-07-2010. In vie w of above development, this Court closed the review petition as not pressed. In the subsequent decision in Luleswar Hazarika, this Court pass 35. ed the following order:- (cid:28)(i) The candidates who did not respond to the aforementioned advertisement issu ed by the High Power Committee cannot now claim that their cases have been ignor ed or not responded to by the High Power Committee. There cannot be any endless exercise. The High Power Committee has already carried out the same. (ii) So far as the cases which have been rejected by the High Power Committee, t he candidates involved in the said cases are entitled to know the reason for suc h rejection. Although such reasons may be available in the report of the High Po wer Committee but it will be appropriate for the Govt. to furnish and/or provide reason to the individual candidates. Necessary communication in this regard sha ll be made to the candidates whose plea of being dropped teachers has been rejec ted. (iii) Inspite of the exercise that has been carried out by the High Power Commit tee, if there are still any pending case of dropped teachers of LP/ME Schools wi th which the present proceeding is concerned, the High Power Committee shall car ry out necessary exercise in terms of the said notification dated 16-07-2010. (iv) The Government in the Education Department shall take necessary follow up a ction in terms of the list of dropped teachers that has already been published i n the newspaper on 01-03-2008. (cid:29) 36. Thus, this Court had directed that if there were any pending cas es of dropped teachers with which the said proceeding was concerned, the High Po wer Committee should carry out the necessary exercise in terms of notification d ated 16-07-2010 whereby the High Power Committee was reconstituted to examine al l pending cases of dropped teachers. 37. Respondents have not denied that the cases of the petitioners ar e similar to those of the 130 dropped teachers whose services were provincialise d vide notification dated 17-07-2010 by relaxing the requirement of Rule 5(3) of the Rules as a one time measure. There is no reasonable explanation or justific ation as to why power of relaxation was not similarly invoked in the case of the petitioners. The only explanation given in all the three cases is that the peti tioners did not serve for two years prior to the date of provincialisation of th e respective schools. This is also the stand evident from the notings in the fil e. Such reason is already there which is the cause of this continuous litigation for more than a decade and really is no justification. The question is why the power of relaxation, which was invoked in respect of 130 dropped teachers, has n ot been exercised in the case of the petitioners ? What is the basis of differen tiation between the petitioners and those 130 dropped teachers? Respondents are unable to give any answer to the above questions. All that is said is that the power of relaxation was invoked as a one time measure and cannot be invoked any further as it may open the flood gate of similar claim. 38. The above apprehension expressed by the respondents appears to b e without any basis as this Court in Luleswar Hazarika had already made it abund antly clear that those who did not respond to the earlier advertisement of the H igh Power Committee cannot claim consideration of their cases any further as the re cannot be any endless exercise. It was also made clear that if there were any pending cases of dropped teachers with which the proceeding in Luleswar Hazarik a was concerned, those cases should also be considered in terms of the notificat ion dated 16-07-2010. Moreover, there are only three writ petitions now being co nsidered by this Court espousing the cause of 28 dropped teachers. 39. In Secretary, State of Karnataka -Vs- Uma Devi reported in (2006 ) 4 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while declaring claim for regularisation of temporary, contractual, casual, daily wage or ad-hoc employees as unconstitutio nal, had however made an exception in case of irregular appointments, which was clarified in paragraph 53 of the judgment. The State was directed to take steps to regularize the services of irregularly appointed persons, who had worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the Courts or of tribunals, as a (cid:28)one-time measure (cid:29). The term (cid:28)one-time measure (cid:29) was explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the subsequent decision in State of K arnataka -Vs- M.L. Kesari reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247 to mean that it should co nsider all daily-wage, ad-hoc or casual employees who had put in 10 years of con tinuous service as on 10-04-2006 (date of judgment in Uma Devi) without availing the protection of any interim orders of Courts or tribunals. If any employer ha d held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of Uma Devi but did not conside r the cases of some employees who were entitled to regularisation, the employer concerned should consider their cases also as a continuation of the one-time exe rcise. The onetime exercise will be concluded only when all the employees who ar e entitled to be considered are so considered. The fact that the onetime exercis e was undertaken only in regard to a limited few will not disentitle such employ ees the right to be considered for regularisation as a one-time measure. Thus, i n the context of the present case, the term (cid:28)one time measure (cid:29) has to be underst ood to be the exercise covering the cases of all similarly situated dropped teac hers. If any such dropped teacher, who is similarly placed like the 130 dropped teachers, has been left out of consideration through invertance, oversight or fo r any bonafide reason, his case would also require similar consideration as part of the one time measure. 40. Claims of the petitioners are not fresh ones. They have been kno cking the doors of this Court since a long time. Their cases were scrutinized by the departmental authorities and put up before the High Power Committee. As alr eady noticed above, only ground of rejection of their cases is not having two ye ars of service on the date of provincialisation of the respective schools. While the benefit of relaxation under Rule 7 has been extended to 130 similarly situa ted dropped teachers, the same has not been extended to the petitioners without any reasonable basis or justification. While exercising the power under Rule 7 o f the Rules, the State is required to act in a fair and judicious manner. There should not be any arbitrariness or discrimination in the exercise of such power which would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In the facts and cir cumstances of the case, the Court is of the view that petitioners were subjected to an unfair and discriminatory treatment, which situation is now required to b e remedied. In that view of the matter, the cases of the petitioners for pro 41. vincialisation are required to be reconsidered by invoking the power under Rule 7 of the Rules by the State Government at par with the 130 dropped teachers in w hose cases the provision of Rule 5(3) was relaxed. The above exercise shall be c arried out within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certifie d copy of this order. 42. returned back. 43. 44. Record produced by Mr. M.R. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel is Writ petitions are allowed. No cost.