ISHWAR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

CW 3126/2009 SMT. PHOOLWATI Vs. 22 CW 3129/2009 GOMARAM & ORS Vs. 23 CW 8898/2009 DURGA RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS STATE OF RAJ. & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 24 CW 3227/2009 SUNIL KUMAR & ORS Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 25 CW 3228/2009 DHARMPAL & ORS Vs. 26 CW 3230/2009 RATAN LAL JAT Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 27 CW 3254/2009 SHYAM LAL PATWARI & ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 28 CW 3256/2009 BHANWRA RAM Vs. 29 CW 3257/2009 JOGA RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS 30 CW 3259/2009 RAJENDRA KUMAR & ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 31 CW 3260/2009 MITHA LAL & ORS Vs. 32 CW 3261/2009 JALA RAM & ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS 33 CW 3262/2009 DEPTI SINGH & ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 34 CW 3263/2009 DALURAM & ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 35 CW 3264/2009 SAMUNDER SINGH & ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 3 36 CW 3265/2009 BHAWANI SINGH & ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 37 CW 3266/2009 RAM CHANDRA DIDOR & ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 38 CW 3267/2009 ROOPA RAM DEWASI & ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 39 CW 3276/2009 ROHIT KUMAR & ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 40 CW 3277/2009 BHANWAR LAL & ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 41 CW 3278/2009 GAUTAMLAL PATEL & ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 42 CW 3286/2009 NARULAL & ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 43 CW 3287/2009 MEGHALAL MEENA & ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 44 CW 3288/2009 LALIT SINGH RANAWAT & ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 45 CW 3289/2009 NAYANESH PANDYA & ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 46 CW 3530/2009 BALVINDRA SINGH & ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 47 CW 3538/2009 MADAN LAL & ORS Vs. 48 CW 3559/2009 POOJA RATHORE Vs. 49 CW 3561/2009 NITASHA RATHORE Vs. UNION OF INDIA ORS. UNION OF INDIA ORS. UNION OF INDIA ORS. 50 CW 3564/2009 SHAILENDRA PANDYA & ORS Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 51 CW 3572/2009 BHARAT LAL & ORS. Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 52 CW 3576/2009 ASHOK KUMAR JOSHI & ORS. Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 53 CW 3579/2009 SMT. SULOCHNA & ORS. Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 54 CW 7275/2009 RAJU SINGH & ORS. Vs. STATE OF RJASTHAN & ORS. 4 55 CW 3606/2009 BHAWAR SINGH Vs. 56 CW 3607/2009 SUMER SINGH INDA Vs. 57 CW 3609/2009 RAMANAND Vs. 58 CW 3612/2009 VINOD DEVI Vs. 59 CW 3615/2009 DINESH KUMAR Vs. 60 CW 3617/2009 GORDHAN RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS 61 CW 3622/2009 ASHOK Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 62 CW 3630/2009 BHANWAR SINGH BHATI Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 63 CW 3633/2009 CHANDRA KALA Vs. 64 CW 3634/2009 PRABHU DAYAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS 65 CW 3640/2009 SATYA NARAYAN KHATIK Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 66 CW 3658/2009 TRILOK RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA 67 CW 3659/2009 THANA RAM Vs. 68 CW 3660/2009 DEEPA RAM Vs. 69 CW 3661/2009 BUDHA RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 70 CW 3684/2009 RAJENDRA PRASAD & ORS Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 71 CW 3692/2009 POPAT LAL & ANR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 72 CW 3717/2009 BHERU SINGH & ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 73 CW 3718/2009 DEEPA RAM & ANR Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 5 74 CW 3790/2009 MAHENDRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 75 CW 3822/2009 SHANTILAL KATARA & ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 76 CW 3828/2009 BHEEM SINGH & ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 77 CW 3856/2009 SUJA RAM & ORS Vs. 78 CW 8369/2009 KC SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. 79 CW 3927/2009 MANGU SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA 80 CW 3945/2009 KHAYALI LAL & ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 81 CW 3998/2009 LAXMAN SINGH BHATI & ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 82 CW 4020/2009 INDERJEET BHANBHU & ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 83 CW 4137/2009 HAJARI LAL MEGHWAL & ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 84 CW 4174/2009 DEVI SINGH & ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 85 CW 4189/2009 LAKHVINDER SINGH & ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 86 CW 4242/2009 NARAIN LAL & ORS Vs. 87 CW 4275/2009 NARPAT G. PALI Vs. 88 CW 4313/2009 PAWAN KUMAR & ORS 89 CW 4322/2009 MAHAVEER SINGH & ORS 90 CW 4323/2009 BHAKAR RAM & ORS Vs. Vs. Vs. 91 CW 4324/2009 JASHRAJ & ORS Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS 92 CW 4325/2009 SHREE KRISHNA & ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 6 93 CW 4326/2009 JAGDISH CHANDRA JAT & ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 94 CW 4327/2009 SMT. ANITA DEVI & ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 95 CW 4328/2009 SYORAM RAWAT & ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 96 CW 4329/2009 97 CW 4330/2009 98 CW 4331/2009 99 CW 4332/2009 KISHAN BIHARI MEENA & ORS PRAHLAD SINGH GURJAR & ORS SATYANARAYAN SHARMA & ORS KHYALI RAM & ORS Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS 100 CW 4333/2009 SHRIPAL KASANA & ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 101 CW 4334/2009 RAM KISHAN GURJAR & ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 102 CW 4341/2009 HARI RAM KULIYA Vs. 103 CW 4342/2009 AMRI DEVI Vs. 104 CW 4344/2009 HARENDRA SINGH JHALA & ORS 105 CW 4409/2009 106 CW 4481/2009 107 CW 4483/2009 108 CW 4584/2009 109 CW 4587/2009 SHIV RAJ KHATIK & ORS RAMLAL CHOUDHARY & ORS VIJENDRA SINGH & ORS RAJPAL SWAMI & ORS DINESH KUMAR & ORS 110 CW 4628/2009 DURGA RAM & ANR Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. 111 CW 4641/2009 MOHAMMAD IMRAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS 7 112 CW 4674/2009 MUMTAJ SAIYYED &ORS 113 CW 4700/2009 114 CW 4757/2009 KESAR SINGH & ORS SATYA VEER SINGH & ORS Vs. Vs. Vs. 115 CW 4786/2009 DEVI SINGH & ANR Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS 116 CW 4799/2009 RAMESH SINGH PUROHIT & ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 117 CW 4864/2009 BANSHI LAL & ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 118 CW 4904/2009 RAM CHANDRA BISHNOI & ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 119 CW 4910/2009 PAPPU RAM & ANR Vs. 120 CW 4959/2009 121 CW 5001/2009 122 CW 5030/2009 123 CW 5033/2009 KISHAN SINGH & ORS PRAKASH CHAND KUMAWAT & ORS DAULAT RAM & ORS RAMSWAROOP & ORS Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. 124 CW 5040/2009 SOHAN RAM Vs. 125 CW 5042/2009 PAPPU RAM Vs. 126 CW 5043/2009 MAHESH KUMAR Vs. 127 CW 5045/2009 MANOHAR LAL Vs. 128 CW 5054/2009 NARESH KUMARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ANR UNION OF INDIA & ANR UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS 129 CW 5127/2009 NARAYAN LAL & ANR Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. 130 CW 5144/2009 PABU SINGH & ORS. Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 8 131 CW 5265/2009 GIRIRAJ PRASAD PRAJAPAT & ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 132 CW 5278/2009 MANOHAR DAN Vs. 133 CW 5279/2009 MANAK RAM SIYAG Vs. 134 CW 5285/2009 135 CW 5286/2009 SUKHDEV RAM JAKHER JEEVAN RAM PATEER Vs. Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS 136 CW 5302/2009 TARA SHARMA Vs. STATE & ORS 137 CW 5322/2009 RAKAM LAL MAIDA & ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 138 CW 5360/2009 139 CW 5369/2009 SHIV SHANKAR & ORS GORI SHANKER & ORS Vs. Vs. 140 CW 5390/2009 MOHNI DEVI Vs. 141 CW 5419/2009 SHARWAN KUMAR & ORS 142 CW 5430/2009 PURNA RAM JANI & ANR 143 CW 5454/2009 144 CW 5496/2009 SHANKER LAL & ORS LADULAL NAI & ORS Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. 145 CW 5497/2009 TAMNNA BHARTI Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS 146 CW 5499/2009 LEHRU DAS VAISHNAV & ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 147 CW 5548/2009 BHEEMA RAM & ORS 148 CW 5553/2009 BHERU LAL SAINI & ORS 149 CW 5554/2009 SUNIL KUMAR & ORS Vs. Vs. Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS 9 150 CW 5555/2009 151 CW 5556/2009 VINOD KUMAR & ORS BHIMRAJ VADERA & ORS Vs. Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS 152 CW 5588/2009 PANNA RAM KHOJA & ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 153 CW 5591/2009 NIRMALA AMETA & ORS Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 154 CW 5594/2009 RADHEY SHYAM BERAGI & ORS 155 CW 5605/2009 CHHELU SINGH & ORS Vs. Vs. 156 CW 5628/2009 PRITHVI PAL SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS 157 CW 5735/2009 RAMESH CHANDRA DHAKAR & ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 158 CW 5737/2009 POONAM BHATI Vs. 159 CW 5858/2009 BHAGIRATH & ORS. Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS 160 CW 5861/2009 VED PRAKASH & ORS. Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 161 CW 5864/2009 PITH SINGH & ORS Vs. 162 CW 5875/2009 BABU LAL & ORS Vs. 163 CW 5893/2009 164 CW 6096/2009 HEERA SINGH PARMAR RAM DEVA RAM BAVRI & ORS. Vs. Vs. 165 CW 6148/2009 NANJI RAM & ORS. Vs. 166 CW 6365/2009 RICHHPAL & ORS. Vs. 167 CW 6440/2009 GANPAT SINGH Vs. 168 CW 6480/2009 JALA RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 10 169 CW 6481/2009 NIRMAL DINDOR & ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 170 CW 6502/2009 KRISHAN LAL & ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 171 CW 6544/2009 OM PRAKASH & ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 172 CW 6568/2009 RATAN LAL NATH & ORS Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. 173 CW 6838/2009 JETHMAL & ORS Vs. 174 CW 7237/2009 KAL SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Date of order :: 21st November, 2009 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. S/Sh. Sukesh Bhati, Firoz Khan, Rakesh Arora, RS Choudhary, PR Mehta, PP Choudhary, Rameshwar Dave, Dr. PS Bhati, RRC Gorsia, Aruna Negi, RS Gill, BL Choudhary, MP Pareek, CS Rajpurohit, SS Rathore, SP Bhati, VS Rajpurohit, Prahald Singh Bhati, BL Choudhary, AD Charan, RN Choudhary, AS Rathore, BS Deora, JS Khan, SL Sankhla, Rajendra Rajpurohit, Kuldeep Mathur, BN Kalla, Ramesh Purohit, Sandeep Saruparia, Devendra Singh Dev, Vikram Singh, BR Bishnoi, JS Bhati, Ramdeo Potalia, SG Ojha and Tanar Singh, for the petitioners. Sh. RL Jangid Addl. Advocate General. Sh. VK Mathur for the UOI. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. These writ petitions have been preferred by various petitioners who have been appointed on various posts under the National Literacy Mission Project and their services have 11 been sought to be discontinued w.e.f. 31st March, 2009 and, therefore, all these writ petitions involved common question of facts and law are decided by this common judgment. It will be appropriate to look into the background under which the petitioners were appointed and now their services are sought to be discontinued w.e.f. 31st March,

2009. The National Literacy Mission was launched in the year 1988 and a scheme of Continuing Education for NEO- Literates was prepared. It was found that in the absence of learning environment and effective programme of post- literacy and continuing education, the efforts made in literacy programmes yield extremely limited results. Therefore, in the year 1982-83 the Government started funding a post-literacy and continuing education programme and specified the duration of the basic literacy, post-literacy and follow-up programmes as 350, 150 and 100 hours over a period of 3 years. Later, based on monitoring and feedback from the implementing agencies, a new time-frame of 8 months of basic literacy plus 4 months of post-literacy and 1 year of follow-up was adopted in 1985 which reduced the total period of 3 years to 2 years, keeping intact the total duration of 600 hours. In the course of the nationawide debate on the New Education Policy, it became clear that the post efforts of institutionalise post-literacy and continuing education were 12 inadequate and there was an urgent need to create permanent structures and facilities for this purpose. National Policy on Education (NPE) and Programme of Action (POA) have, therefore, given considerable attention to the need for creation of satisfactory arrangements for post-literacy and continuing education. The NPE as modified in 1992 envisages that comprehensive programmes of post-literacy and continuing education will be provided for neo-literates and youth who have received primary education with a view to enabling them to retain and upgrade their literacy skills, and to harness it for the improvement of their living and working conditions. The National Literacy Mission for adult literacy is based on voluntary mass-mobilisation and mass-participation in the scientific pursuit of teaching and learning and to implement that policy various plans and schemes were introduced which is continuing education programme wherein there were projects known as (i) Total Literacy Compaign (TLC), (ii) Project for Eradication of Residual Illiteracy (PRI), (iii) Post Literacy Programme (PLP) or continuing education programme (CEP). These projects/centers were created and established to provide area-specific, need based opportunities for up-gradation of literacy of literacy skills, pursuit of alternative educational programme and also to promote social and occupational development. This entire project is fully funded centrally sponsored scheme obviously 13 by the Central Government. The scheme was revised in the year 1999 and it was implemented through various agencies, reference of which is not very much relevant for the purpose of deciding these writ petitions, but initially 100% financial assistance was provided to the State Literacy Mission Authority for the three projects by the Union of India and admissible expenditure is share equally by Central and State on 50% basis for the 4th and 5th year, after which the State Government is required to take over the total responsibility for continuation of the programme. In this entire project and mission, the project was volunteer based and, therefore, volunteers were selected, which was known as Preraks. In the scheme it was clearly indicated that incharge of the continuing education center would essentially be a part time Prerak, who may be paid appropriate honorarium or incentive out of the provision for the same made in the budget of the CEC/NCEC for the particular project year. The different honorarium were fixed for different occupations which were enhanced from time to time. Since it was a matter of great importance looking to the illiteracy in the India, therefore, it appears that old project/mission was reviewed in the conference of the State Education Secretaries in Bhawan on 1st Augusdt, 2008 and based on the cumulative inputs from sources it was proposed to revise the strategy for implementation of adult 14 education programmes. It was observed that the main difference in strategy is that rather than implementing separate and segmented programme for basic literacy, post literacy and continuing education, there will be transit seamlessly, without breaks, from basic literacy to continuing education. It was observe that this difference strategy is proposed in recognition of the fat that literacy learning does not occur at a uniform, homogeneous pace throughout the district. Experience of implementation of literacy programmes has shown that in any district, irrespective of whether the district is at the TLC or PLP or CE stage, there would be persons who are illiterate/semi literate, people at neo-literate level as also adolescents and young adults who may have dropped out of school before completing primary or elementary education and are in need of continuing their education. Therefore, in any district basis/post literacy and continuing education programmes would need to run concurrently and learners would need to be provided a choice of programme suited to their needs and requirements. The above was disclosed in the communication sent by the Government of India to all the Education Secretaries of the States dated 19.1.2009, copy of which has been placed on record as Ex.R2/1 in reply to the show cause notice issued by this Court in SBCWP No.2718/2009. It has also been conveyed by the same letter dated 19.1.2009 that Preparatory to initiating the 15 revised programme, it is necessary for you to ensure settlement of accounts of the schemes presently underway in the districts of your State, irrespective of whether the projects are for Total Literacy Compaign (TLC) Project for Eradication of Residual Illiteracy (PRI), Post Literacy Programme (PLP) or continuing Education Programme (CEP). Then the State Governments were directed to initiate the steps which includes All TLC/PRI/PLP projects should be declared closed with effect from 31st March, 2009. Principally, the controversy has been raised by the petitioners on the basis of the above directions whereby it has been directed that all TLC/PRI/PLP projects should be declared closed and in this direction No.1, it has not been conveyed that continuing education programme (CEP) be also closed. The contention of the petitioners is that, that the Union of India has not taken a decision to close down the continuing education programme, therefore, the petitioners' appointment under the continuing education programme cannot be directed to discontinue. It is also submitted that even if any decision has been taken to continue the national literacy mission in another form then yet no final decision yet has been taken by the Union of India to implement the continuing education programme in another form and since there is need of the employees in the existing mission, therefore, until the new projects are launched, the 16 petitioners are entitled to continue. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are appointed on various posts and are looking after numerous work including maintaining and conducting the libraries in the villages and if their services will be discontinued then no provision has been made for handing over the libraries to anybody either by the State Government or by the Union of India. It is also submitted that in fact, the petitioners are sought to be removed by new employees to be selected by the same process. Meaning thereby, even when petitioners are duly selected in project/mission by changing the name of scheme/project or mission, the respondents arbitrarily wants to remove the existing employees by substituting them with the employees appointed in the same manner in which petitioners have been given appointment. Therefore, this arbitrary decision is illegal. It is also submitted that all the petitioners who are dependent and are employed in the programme will become unemployed and their family will have to face hardship and their removal will result into increase in unemployment. The petitioners further submitted that in same or similar situation, the persons working under the Lok Jumbish were absorbed in other programme then petitioners are also entitled to be absorbed in the recognized programme, which may be launched in any name by Union of India/State as continuing education programme. It is also submitted that Rajasthan Primary 17 Education Council also recommended for absorption of the candidates working under this scheme and for this copy of such recommendation has been placed on record in SBCWP No.3069/2009 as Annex.P/12. It is also submitted that the petitioners were given appointment not only as Prerak but on the post of Manager/Conductor as well as Librarian and all have been assigned their work of social services for which they are being paid. The petitioners are working with devotion and made the programme in success. It is submitted that re-constitution of the programme can be made even by continuing the petitioners in the re- constituted programme, which will benefit the programme as the petitioners are experienced workers. In sum and substance the contention of the petitioners are that; (i) they have given appointment though in project/mission on contract basis on the honorarium, but they have been appointed after due process of selection and discharging the duties then they cannot be replaced by other persons by appointing them on the same conditions of service and by selecting them by same process of selection by which petitioners have been selected as that would amount to replacing one person by another person without there being any reason ignoring the experience acquired by the persons already working, (ii) the project is continuing and it has not been decided by the Union of India to discontinue the programme but the programme will be in new way, but 18 with same aims and objects, therefore, the petitioners can be absorbed in a new project and the same was the procedure adopted when Lok Jumbish programme was stopped and their employees were absorbed in employment by the Government, (iii) the petitioners' need has not come to an end and lastly (iv) the Union of India has not decided to close the continuing education programme, which is apparent from the Annex.R/2/1 dated 19.1.2009, the communication sent by the Government of India to the Education Secretaries of the various States. Learned Addl. Advocate General Shri RL Jangid appearing for the State submitted that since the scheme has been abandoned and closed, therefore, all the engaged persons i.e., volunteers/Preraks cannot be continued. It is submitted that none of the petitioners can claim himself to be employee of the either State Government or of the Union of India or any instrumentality of the Union of India or State Government. It is clearly provided in their contract itself that the scheme is volunteer based and the petitioners were paid only honorarium, neither salary nor wages. The nature of work assigned to them clearly demonstrates that such work can be done only by the volunteers as social service and further they are not supposed to work for full time and, therefore, are not full time worker. They are free to do their own work in view of the limited working hours under the present scheme/mission. In view of the above, 19 the petitioners even have no right to hold the post under any of the rules or scheme. Learned Addl. Advocate General also pointed out that very small amount of honorarium like 500, 700 and 1200 per month were paid to these motivators etc. which amount is only to motivate the persons to work as motivator and the petitioners are engaged in other work also. It is submitted that now the decision has been taken by the Government of India to close down all the projects under the scheme/mission and post literacy programme and continuing education programme are one of the same and non-mentioning of continuing education programme (CEP) in first direction to the State Governments is insignificant and cannot be read without context in which the direction was issued. The policy decision was taken to stop the separate and segmented programme for basic literacy, post literacy and continuing education programme to have transit seamlessly, without breaks, from basic literacy to continuing education programme, therefore, the intention of the Union of India was clear that continuing education programme also be stopped to facilitate a new programme. It is submitted that the policy decision of the Union of India to stop all these projects neither under challenge nor can be challenged because it has been decided by the Government with the help of opinion of the experts. In sum and substance, the petitioners are not employees and they are 20 volunteers having no right on and over the post and they cannot seek continuation of their occupation when the project itself has come to an end. Learned Sr. Centeral Government Standing Counsel Sh. VK Mathur appearing for the Union of India submitted that the Union of India has taken the decision to stop the separate and segmented programmes for basic literacy, post literacy and continuing education programme which is clear from the second part of the communication dated

19.1.2009 and there is no ambiguity in communication dated 19.1.2009 in conveying its decision to all the State Governments. It is submitted that this policy decision was placed before the Joint Session of Parliament wherein Her Excellency the President of India in her address announced that Government will recast the National Literacy Mission as National Mission for Female Literacy to make every woman literate in the next five years. The Union of India also submitted in the reply that in the scheme Preraks/Asstt. Prearks were essentially volunteers and Government of India never promised that the persons appointed as volunteers can be continued permanently or shall be absorbed. Thus, the petitioners have no right to claim permanent retention of their alleged services. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the scheme referred above as well as the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the 21 parties including the decision of Single Bench of this Court delivered in the case of Rajendra Kumar Sain & Ors Vs. UOI & Ors (SBCWP No.5510/2009, decided on 30th June, 2009) alongwith other 66 writ petitions. It will be appropriate to first look into the judgment of this court delivered in Rajendra Kumar Sain's case (supra) wherein the orders passed by the State Government dated

10.2.2009, 17.2.2009 and 12.3.2009 were under challenge whereby the Government decided to close the scheme of National Literacy Mission and dispensed with the services of the Samanvyak/Nodal Prerak/Prerak/Asstt. Prerak. The Central Government's letter dated 19.1.2009 whereby the impugned decision was conveyed was under consideration before the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Sain (supra) and this Court disposed of the writ petitions by following order: - “I have gone through the record of the writ petitions and considered the rival submissions of the parties. In my view, the letter dated

19.1.2009 clearly reveals that the revised scheme is to be implemented instead of old scheme, hence, mere change of the scheme will not result in unemployment and fresh selection. However, the petitioners cannot claim the wages of the intervening period on account of non- allotment of the budget. The action of the respondents envisages the impugned orders of termination of the present petitioners is declared illegal and the petitioners are allowed to continue on their respective posts 22 till the scheme of “Lok Talim” is implemented. However, they will be entitled for continuity in service but not entitled to fixed remuneration for the intervening period in case the scheme of “Lok Talim” is implemented. The writ petitions are disposed of as indicated above.” As a Coordinate bench, this bench is bound by the decision of Jaipur bench of this court delivered in the case of Rajendra Kumar Sain (supra). However, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the facts which have been submitted before this Bench in these writ petitions in pleading were not under consideration in the case of Rajendra Kumar Sain (supra) and these facts goes to the root of the matter. He also vehemently submitted that none of the petitioners was ever given any appointment, the appointment in legal term. The petitioners were engaged as volunteers and, therefore, there was no relationship of employee and employer between the petitioners and the respondents. They have not been engaged for full time and from the duty assigned to them itself, it is clear that they were discharging social services not on payment of salary or wages, but on payment of honorarium. The honorarium given in the present contract cannot be termed to be wages or salary so as to create a relationship of employee and employer between the petitioners and the respondents. The petitioners undertook to volunteer their services and 23 executed the contract and they are bound by the terms of the contract. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that whether to continue a project is the sole discretion of the Union of India and the State Government and once the Union of India found it necessary to close the project itself, may it be to implement another policy decision then the decision was taken well within the jurisdiction of the Union of India. The closure of one project and giving a new project in itself cannot be termed as continuation of the old project in new form. It is also submitted that admittedly new project yet has not been launched by the Union of India then no direction can be issued to Union of India to keep the old project continuing and particularly when without stopping work under that old project, new project cannot be implemented. As per implementation of new project, all accounts are required to be taken off old project. It is also submitted that the petitioners cannot claim their absorption in new project for the reason that they do not have any legal right to claim absorption and further the respondents cannot be directed to pay the honorarium to the petitioners till new project comes or launched by the Union of India or by the State Government. Learned Addl. Advocate General submitted on behalf of the State that after certain period, liability of payment came upon the State and State is not prepared to continue any project as was launched by the Union of india 24 at that point of time. Learned counsel for the respondents also with the help of various judgments submitted that the persons like petitioners cannot claim regularization particularly in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi & ors reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1. It may be true that the ground raised by the respondents were not under consideration before the Coordinate Bench at Jaipur of this Court, but that was because of the reason that those points must have not been taken by the respondents or and if taken, were not pressed. If any decision is given on any of the point raised by the respondents before this Bench of the High Court and if that many result into dismissal of the writ petitions of the petitioners then that will be contrary to the decision given by the Jaipur Bench of this Court and which is absolutely impermissible. The consequence of accepting any of the point of the respondents may result into two contradictory judgments, one granting reliefs to the persons and denying the same to others similarly situated persons. The respondents cannot over come from the hurdle in their way unless they successfully challenge the judgment of this Court delivered in the case of Rajendra Kumar Sain (supra) and connected matters decided by the Jaipur Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 30th June, 2009. Following the principles of precedent these writ 25 petitions are also disposed of in the light of the decision given by Jaipur Bench of this Court without expressing any opinion on the points raised by the respondents. The petitioners are also not entitled to more relief than what has been granted to the petitioners of the case decided by the judgment dated 30th June, 2009. In view of the above reasons, the impugned orders of termination of the petitioners is declared illegal and the petitioners are allowed to continue on the respective posts till the scheme of “Lok Talim” (or scheme in any other name) is implemented. The petitioners shall be entitled for continuity in service, but not entitled to fix remuneration for intervening period in case the scheme of “Lok Talim” (or in any other name is implemented). [PRAKASH TATIA], J. cpgoyal/- 26 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.______/2009 Date of order ::

21.11.2009 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. S/Sh. Sukesh Bhati, Firoz Khan, Rakesh Arora, RS Choudhary, PR Mehta, PP Choudhary, Rameshwar Dave, Dr. PS Bhati, RRC Gorsia, Aruna Negi, RS Gill, BL Choudhary, MP Pareek, CS Rajpurohit, SS Rathore, SP Bhati, VS Rajpurohit, Prahald Singh Bhati, BL Choudhary, AD Charan, RN Choudhary, AS Rathore, BS Deora, JS Khan, SL Sankhla, Rajendra Rajpurohit, Kuldeep Mathur, BN Kalla, Ramesh Purohit, Sandeep Saruparia, Devendra Singh Dev, Vikram Singh, BR Bishnoi, JS Bhati, Ramdeo Potalia, SG Ojha and Tanar Singh, for the petitioners. Sh. RL Jangid Addl. Advocate General. Sh. VK Mathur for the UOI. <><><> This writ petition is disposed of [see separate order in SBCWP No.2718/2009 – Prem Prakash Vs. UOI & Ors., decided today itself]. By order Court Master.