AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
F.I. Rebello, J.—The issue involved in all the writ petitions is the same and hence all the writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.
There was one more petition being Writ Petition No. 2209 of 2000 filed by the Management against the Education Department wherein they had prayed to quash the order of 30th September, 2000 and for direction to grant approval to the seven teachers mentioned in the proforma at Exhibit "G" to that writ petition. The petition was filed on 16th October, 2000. It appears that an interim order dated 16th November, 2000 was passed whereby the Education Officer was asked to verify as to who were working prior to 30th September, 2000. The names of six teachers were set out. Based on that an inspection was done and a report was submitted. The report shows that the muster roll kept by one group showed these names and besides that there was also a muster roll of seven other teachers. Two of the present petitioners were appointed on 20th September, 1999 and one on 18th January, 1999. Three other teachers are shown as appointed on 1st August, 2000. The seven other teachers were appointed on 9th September, 2000. An interim order was passed that Kum. Asmita Raut, Kum. Sunita Singh, Kum. Hemlata Singh and Shri Hridaya Narayan Yadav were to be given ad-hoc approval. By order of 7th December, 2000 the Education Officer gave ad-hoc approval to the teachers. A SLP appears to have been filed before the Honourable Supreme Court. The Honourable Supreme Court by its order dated 25th October, 2007 was pleased to set aside the order of this Court on the ground that such an order could not have been passed at the interim stage but could have been passed only at the final stage and remanded the matter back to the High Court.
The said petition came up for hearing on 25th April, 2008. The Court noted that the previous management of the school was no longer in existence and properly constituted Managing Committee has taken charge since the year 2003. The teachers have been appointed on ad-hoc basis by the Ad-hoc Committee in the year 2000 are still continuing in service and the State Government rejected the said approval. The Ad-hoc Committee preferred a petition against the same which has been allowed by the High Court by an order to run day-to-day affairs of the institution. Since the new Managing Committee was in place, it would not be necessary to decide as to whether the Ad-hoc Committee could have made appointments in view of the order of this Court allowing Ad-hoc committee to run day-to-day affairs. The petition was disposed of by allowing the Managing Committee to make a fresh selection and to forward the select list to the Government and the Government may grant its approval in accordance with law to the teachers who are so selected. Since the teachers, who were appointed by Ad-hoc Committee were working from the year 2000, their appointments were also to be considered. The direction was given as the teachers were not at fault, but they had been appointed by the Ad-hoc Committee and they had rendered services for eight years. While disposing of the said writ petition, it appears that the learned Court''s attention was not invited to the pendency of these three writ petitions, which are the subject matter of the present writ petitions.
According to the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2259 of 2000, petitioner was appointed on 20th September, 1999 against a clear vacancy and on probation and after the post was advertised in newspaper ''Navbharat'' dated 1st June, 1999 and interview held.
The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2302 of 2000 was simply appointed by a communication of 20th September, 1999 against the clear vacancy and on probation and after the post was advertised in newspaper ''Navbharat'' dated 1st June, 1999 and interview held.
The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2314 of 2000 was appointed by an order dated 16th January, 1999 on probation for a period of two years pursuant to an advertisement which appeared in newspaper ''Janasatta'' dated 10th December, 1998.
All these three petitioners were appointed therefore not in the year 2000 but in the year 1999.
On behalf of the respondent Management, it was sought to be contended that though in view of the judgment of this Court dated 25th April, 2008 in Writ Petition No. 2209 of 2000, the petitions filed by the present writ petitioners are infructuous. It is also pointed out that these teachers are the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1855 of 2009 and by virtue of their non-selection by the present Managing Committee pursuant to the directions of 25th April, 2008 they are not entitled to any relief.
In our opinion, the petitioners herein were not parties in the said writ petition. The appointments of the petitioners were of the year 1999 pursuant to advertisements and against clear vacancies as contended by them. That judgment, therefore, would not bind the present petitioners as the observations were made in respect of appointments done in the year 2000.
A reply has been filed by the Deputy Education Inspector setting out that the Ad-hoc Committee was appointed for the Trust on account of dispute between the members. There were seven vacancies, of which one was for the post of Head Master, one post of Assistant Head Master, three posts of Graduate teachers, one post of under Graduate teacher and one post of Special teacher. Reference is then made to approval sought for by the members of the Ad-hoc Committee for the appointments made by two members on one side and one member on another side. It is pointed out that on 9th February, 2000 in Writ Petition No. 56 of 2000 the Ad-hoc Committee was ordered to function pending the hearing of the Change Report which was to be decided within two months period and that till date the said change report had not been decided. It is also mentioned that by that order this Court directed that ad-hoc Committee only will look after day-to-day affairs and will not take any major decision in the matter. In view of that as 14 applications were received and there were only 7 posts, no decision was taken and as such both applications were rejected.
In the instant case, it is clear that the petitioners were not appointed in the year 2000 but were appointed against the clear vacancies in the year 1999. At least nothing has been shown that in the year 1999 the Committee, which was ad-hoc or otherwise, was barred from running the affairs of the institution. This aspect will be dealt by us in another Writ Petition No. 1598 of 2007 wherein some of these issues are in issue. In the light of that, these writ petitions can be disposed of by issuing the following directions:
Respondent No. 1 to consider the case of the present three petitioners as to whether they were appointed after following due procedure and according to law and against clear vacancies. If after hearing the petitioners and perusing the records produced by the Management, the Education Officer comes to the conclusion that the appointment of the petitioners were against clear vacancies and by following due procedure then to grant approval to the appointments without going into the aspect of the legality of the Committee, more so considering that these three teachers have been working since the year 1998 and have been paid salaries of the post of teachers until the order of this Court dated 25th April, 2008. The respondents are further directed to make payment to the teachers from the date their salaries are stopped and till such time as the decision by the Education Officer.
The decision be communicated to each of the petitioner and the same not to be acted upon for a period of two months from the date of the communication of the order to the said teachers, if it be adverse. If the appointments are held to be against clear vacancies, to give the petitioners all benefits, which an approved teacher is entitled to.
Rule made absolute accordingly. All the three writ petitions are disposed of. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.