Mahendra Kumar Pandey and Others vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Bela M. Trivedi, J.—Both the petitions involving similar issues, have been heard together and are being decided by this common order.

The petitioners, by way of present petition, have challenged the action of the respondents, which according to the petitioners would indirectly result into affecting the management and governance of the two elite institutions, namely, Institute of Advanced Studies in Education (IASE) at Bikaner and Ajmer. According to the petitioners, the staff and teachers working in the said Institutions are governed by the Rajasthan Education Service Rules, 1970. The petitioners have as such prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 27/10/2014 (Annex. 4) and order dated 31/10/2014 (Annex. 7), by which the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and others working in the Government aided B.Ed. Colleges, have been posted as Lecturers in these two Institutes at Bikaner and Ajmer.

It is the case of the petitioners that the Institutes of Advanced Studies in Education (IASE) at Bikaner and Ajmer were established by the Department of Secondary Education, for imparting the courses of B.Ed., and M.Ed. as per NCTE norms, and also for providing training courses to the teachers of secondary education. According to the petitioners, the petitioners are working on the various posts in those two institutions of advance studies of education at Ajmer and Bikaner since last more than 12 years. It is further case of the petitioners that there are in all number of other posts covering different cadres for teachers, principals and headmasters of the secondary education department. It is further case of the petitioners that the respondent Nos. 6, 7 and others have been posted at these two institutes at Bikaner and Ajmer by the Directorate, College Education Rajasthan vide order dated 27/10/2014. Since the said respondents were governed by the Rajasthan Voluntary Rural Education Service Rules, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as ''the said Rules''), they could not have been posted in the College/Schools in urban areas. According to the petitioners, the department of college/higher education has issued the order dated 31/10/2014 for accommodating the said respondents at the said institutes where the petitioners are working, only with a view to take control over the said institutes.

The petitions have been resisted by the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and 6 and 7 by filing separate replies. It is contended by the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 inter alia that the State Government in the year 2012-13 had taken the policy decision, by which the B.Ed. Colleges/Courses were taken under the Higher Education Department (Group-4). It is further submitted that in five new government B.Ed. Colleges opened by the Government, the lecturers who were appointed under the said Rules were absorbed, however even after the lapse of two years, the NCTE did not give the consent to run the government B.Ed. Colleges, and therefore on account of the administrative reasons, the said lecturers including the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 were posted in the government B.Ed. Colleges at Ajmer, Bikaner and other places. It is also contended that after the amendment in the said Rules vide notification dated 13/12/2011, the lecturers working in the rural areas could be posted in urban areas also. The respondent Nos. 6 and 7 have also supported the contentions raised by the respondent Nos. 3 to 5, and further contended inter alia that the petitioners have no right to challenge the policy decision of the Government and have also no locus standi to challenge the transfer/posting of the said respondents.

It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. S.P. Sharma for the petitioners that the IASE Institutions were under the control of the Secondary Education Department and hence, the college education department could not have passed the impugned order dated 27/10/2014 shifting the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and others to the said institutes at Ajmer and Bikaner jeopardising the rights of the petitioners. According to him, the said respondents and others having been appointed under the said Rules could not have been appointed in the Institutes at urban areas. According to Mr. Sharma, as per the note sheet at Annexure-R/6.7/4, of the Chief Secretary, the said two IASEs were to be left to function under the secondary education department only, and not to be shifted under the higher education department. However, the learned counsels for the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and for the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 submitted that there being an amendment made in the Rules of Business shifting the subject B.Ed. from Group-I to Group-IV, the said institutes had remained no more under the control of the Secondary Education and had become the part of Group-4 i.e. for higher education and college education. They also pointed out that the said Rules have also been amended whereby the respondents could be posted in urban areas also. Mr. Inderjeet Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 further submitted that service conditions of the petitioners having not been affected by the impugned orders, they could not have filed the present petition. Mr. Punit Singhvi, for the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Shanti Sports Club and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, submitted that notings in the file by the officials could not be treated as the decision of the Government.

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, and to the documents on record, it appears that the bone of contention raised by the petitioners in both the petitions is that the both the IASE at Bikaner and Ajmer, earlier being under the control and management of the secondary education department, the impugned orders passed by the higher education department were illegal. In this regard, it is required to be noted that vide the notification dated 24/4/2012, Annexure-R/2, the Rules of Business were amended, whereby the opening and upgradation of B.Ed. Colleges/courses were put under the Higher Education Department (Group-IV). In view of the said amendment, it could not be said that the impugned order passed by the Higher Education Department was illegal or dehors the Rules of Business. Though it was sought to be submitted by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. S.P. Sharma for the petitioners, relying upon the note sheet at Annexure-R/6-7/4 that the intention of the Government was to continue the existing B.Ed colleges with the secondary education department, and it was only new B.Ed Colleges, which were to be managed and regulated by the higher education department. The said submission can not be accepted in view of the decision of Apex Court in case of Shanti Sports Club and Anr. vs. U.O.I. (supra), in which it has been observed as under:--

"As a result of the above discussion, we hold that the noting recorded in the official files by the officers of the Government at different levels and even the Ministers do not become decision of the Government unless the same is sanctified and acted upon by issuing an order in the name of the President or Governor, as the case may, authenticated in the manner provided in Articles 77(2) and 166(2) and is communicated to the affected persons. The notings and/or decisions recorded in the file do not confer any right or adversely affect the right of any person and the same can neither be challenged in a court nor made basis for seeking relief..." 7. The Court also does not find any substance in the submission of the learned senior counsel Mr. Sharma for the petitioners that service conditions of the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and others being governed by the said Rules, they could not have been shifted in urban areas. Since the said Rules have also been amended by the notification dated 13/12/2011 at Annexure-R/1, whereby the lecturers/teachers appointed under the said Rules could be shifted from rural to urban areas, the action of the respondent department could not be said to be dehors the said Rues. The respondent Department has also explained the circumstances under which the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and others have been shifted from their respective B.Ed. Colleges to the present IASE Institutes at Bikaner and Ajmer. As rightly submitted by the learned government counsel, by the impugned orders, the seniority and service conditions of the petitioners having not been affected, and the petitioners have no right to challenge the policy decision taken by the State Government.

In that view of the matter, both the petitions being devoid of merits are dismissed. By this order, the stay applications also stand dismissed.