The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 5010 of 2019 Amrendra Kumar Pandit Prakash Kumar Agrawal Ram Ranjan Pankaj Kumar Ramraj Pandey Rajesh Kumar Singh Dipak Kumar Pandey Sudhir Kumar Pandey 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Basant Prajapati 10. Pushplata Prasad 11. Lalit Kumar Singh 12. Pravin Kumar Singh 13. Satya Narayan Sharma 14. Durgesh Kumar Singh 15. Budhi Narayan Sah 16. Subhash Kumar Gupta 17. Md. Khalid 18. Amardeo Uraon 19. Ravi Prakash Yadav 20. Shyam Lal Paul 21. Raushan Kumar Singh 22. Anil Prajapati 23. Ashootosh Sharma 24. Aslam Hussain Ansari 25. Binod Ram 26. Anup Kumar singh 27. Ram Bali Prasad 28. Binod Ravidas 29. Pravin Kumar 30. Satyendra Kumar 31. Avadhesh Mehta 32. Dilip Kumar 2 33. Deorup Yadav 34. Ashok Xalxo 35. Karanju Pal Vs. …. Petitioners 1. The Union of India, through Department of Human Resources, Government of India, Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, Central Secretariat, New Delhi 2. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi 3. The Director, Primary Education, Department of School Education and Literacy, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurva, Ranchi 4. The Chairman, Jharkhand Education Project Council, Doranda, Ranchi 5. The Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa 6. The District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Programme Officer, Garhwa 7. The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro 8. The District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Programme officer, Bokaro … Respondents CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK ---------- For the Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
been decided by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in its judgment delivered 3 on 16.12.2022 in W.P.(S) No.315 of 2016 & Other Analogous Cases and since the Hon’ble Division Bench has dismissed the said writ applications, this case may also be dismissed in view of the observations made in W.P.(S) No.315 of 2016 & Other Analogous Cases. 3. In view of the fair submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, it appears that the issue is now no more res integra as the similar issue fell for consideration before Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No.315 of 2016 & Other Analogous Cases and vide order dated 16.12.2022, Division Bench of this Court has observed thus:- 23. xxx xxx xxx
Arguments
: Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mrs. Vandana Singh, Sr.SC-III Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, Advocate Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate ----------- 07/ 28.06.2023 The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to regularize/adjust/absorb the TET passed para teachers against the sanctioned and vacant post of Assistant Teachers. 2. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties jointly submits that issues involved in this writ petition have already
Decision
(a). Admittedly, the writ petitioners have been appointed under a scheme floated by the Central Government in collaboration with State Government, financial burden of which is being borne by the Centre and State at present in the ratio of 60:40. The purpose to launch scheme is to universalize the elementary education across the country and for that purpose para teachers have been decided to be engaged on contract basis to impart education to the children in the age group of 6 to 14 years. Since the basic feature of the scheme is to universalize the elementary education under the scheme under which the writ petitioners have been appointed as para teachers and they have accepted the terms and conditions of appointment as also honorarium which they have started to receive and same is being received by them. Since the writ petitioners have been appointed on contract under a scheme and as such no legal vested right has been conferred to the writ petitioner to stake claim for regularization of their services in view of the position of law having been settled by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors Vs. K. Brahmanandam & Ors (supra) that there cannot be command by the High Court in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of direction upon the State instrumentalities for their regularization. (b). The writ petitioners also cannot be regularized for the reason 4 that they are not subjected to the recruitment process which is being subjected to the regular Assistant Teachers at the time of fulfilling the permanent vacancies of the cadre rather the petitioners are being appointed at Panchayat Level or Block Level by Village Education Committee and candidate is being called for the local area and as such they are not being subjected to the due recruitment process. Hence, on this ground also they cannot be regularized in service. (c). The parameter has been fixed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi (3) as under paragraph 53 thereof stipulating the condition of regularization and the condition that the appointment must be made against the sanctioned post but it is admitted case that the writ petitioners are not appointed against sanctioned post, rather they are the contractual engagee under a scheme. Once an appointee is appointed under a scheme there is no question of considering them to be appointed against the sanctioned post and thereby they are not fulfilling the criteria fixed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi (3) (supra). Further reason is that there is non-observance of mandate of Article 16 of the Constitution of India since there is no wide inviting applications to all concerned who are eligible to be considered and if ignoring such candidates the services of the writ petitioners will be regularized the other candidates will be subjected to discrimination and a fair chance to participate in the process of selection. The scheme (SSA) since is under joint collaboration of Centre and State and financial burden is being borne to the extent of 60:40 and in that view of the matter also there cannot be direction by the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for their regularization of their services on the ground of financial constraint as taken by the State. In this regard, the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh & Another vs. Anand Kumar Yadav & Ors. [(2018) 13 SCC 560] is required to be referred 5 wherein the issue fell for consideration seeking regularization of teachers who are being appointed under SSA has been negated and the version of the High Court has also been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, relevant paragraph of which is quoted as under: “29. Further difficulty which stares one in the face is the law laid down by this Court on regularisation of contractually appointed persons in public employment. Appointment of Shiksha Mitras was not only contractual, it was not as per qualification prescribed for a teacher nor on designation of teacher nor in pay scale of teachers. Thus, they could not be regularised as teachers. Regularisation could only be of mere irregularity. The exceptions carved out by this Court do not apply to the case of the present nature.” This Court on the basis of the aforesaid reasoning coupled with the judicial pronouncements, as referred above, is of the view that the writ petitioners are not entitled for regularization in service. Issue no. I is decided accordingly. 4. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid judicial pronouncement, rules, guidelines and observations, I do not find any merit in the instant case. Resultantly, this writ petition stands dismissed. punit/- (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)