AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Lahiri, J.—Since 1982, two school teachers, the Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 Sri Ananda Natu, are fighting litigations. The Petitioner filed a writ application in 1982, obtained a Rule, the parties appeared and on 22.1.84 when the matter cams up for hearing the High Court transferred the case to the learned Assam Administrative Tribunal directing it to dispose the matter as an appeal, Learned Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal to the Petitioner had not preferred any appeal to the Government, The Petitioner filed the writ application against the order of the Tribunal and it has come up for hearing before us.
The Petitioner is a teacher with meagre pay in the range of Rs. 500/- per month and some paltry allowances. Respondent No. 3 is also a teacher with the same low salary and allowances. Mr. B.K. Das, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3, Sri Anauta depicts the tragic story that since September, 1982, Respondent NO. 3 Is going without any pay, salary or allowances and his wife, another teacher, is fighting this litigation and sustaining the family. So, three teachers are involved in the litigation and their lives and livelihood depend on the result of the case. We consider it to be necessary to dispense justice to the parties us expeditiously as possible acting within the frame work of the Constitutor and the law. We allowed Mr. D.P. Challha, learned Govt Advocate, Assam to take appropriate instructions from the State Government as well as the Education Department of the Govt. of Assam to enable the court to dispense justice. Mr. Chaliha has obtained necessary instructions. Mr. Chaliha also agrees that instead of causing further delay in disposal of the burning question involved in the case, it should be disposed of on merits. Mr. B.C. Das, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3 as well as Mr. B. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the Petitioner agrees that the case should be disposed of as expeditiously as possible.
The factual matrix of the case may be summed up thus allowed to hold the post of the Headmaster and on 6.9.82 the Government cancelled the appointment of the Petitioner and appointed temporarily Respondent No. 3 as Headmaster of the school.
It is thus seen that the Petitioner was appointed on ad-hoc basis until the list of the eligible Headmasters was prepared and approved by the Government. Similarly, the impugned order of appointment of Respondent No. 3 as Headmaster of the school is also an ad hoc appointment. Although the Rules'''' came into force in 1979 the Education Department of the Government and/or State Government failed to prepare and/or cause to be prepared the list of the eligible Headmasters. In consequence thereof the Head of the Institution and other responsible teacher including the Assistant Headmasters, principals, Vice-Principals are being appointed temporarily and/or on ad-hoc basis.
Seven years have rolled by, yet the Education Department of the Government and/or the State Government have failed to perform their statutory duty. In consequence of the failure of the duty the High Schools are being deprived of eligible Headmasters and the Assistant Headmasters to the detriment of the education of the pupils. It is a serious business. The students must get eligible persons as their Headmasters and Assistant Headmasters. Similarly, teachers must know where they stand. Instead of performing the statutory duty to prepare the list of the persons eligible for appointment as Headmasters and Assistant Headmasters of the High Schools, the State Government allowed ad hoc appointments of the Headmasters and Assistant Headmasters of so many schools for so many years. Such ad-hoc appointments smack of violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In consequence of the in action de-die-in-diem the school going children were deprived of and are being deprived of their Constitutional right to get appropriate education from eligible teachers. It is apparent that the appointment of the Petitioner as well as the impugned appointment of Respondent No, 3 are ad-hoc appointments. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as Respondent No. 3 submit that similar appointments are being made by the Managing Committees of other High Schools which are being approved by the Education Department of the Government. Learned Counsel submit that these are ad-hocism and the continuance of the policy of ad-bocism has been followed by the Respondents for a long period and it has led to the breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution. Learned Counsel for both the parties have contended that to uphold the Constitution and the Law, to safeguard the interest of the teachers and the students it has become imperative to direct the Education Department of the Government and the State Government to prepare the list of the persons eligible for appointment as Headmasters, Assistant Headmasters, etc., of the High Schools.
In order to obtain full and comprehensive instructions we granted time to Mr. Challha, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam Mr. Challha fairly submits that it has becomes imperative to prepare the list and the present Government it extremely anxious to cause the list prepared as expeditiously is possible. The list of eligible persons for appointment as Headmasters may be prepared within two months from today.
It is thus seen that the main thrust of the Petitioner is that the Education Department and the Government, who are statutorily obligated to prepare the list of teachers eligible for appointment as Headmasters under Rule 6 read with Rule 8 of the Rules be directed to prepare "the list" as no permanent Headmaster could be selected for appointment until the list of eligible persons for appointment as Headmasters is prepared by the Department and approved by the Government in accordance with the provisions of Rule 6 of the Rules. The question posed by the Petitioner is also supported by Mr. B.K. Das, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3. We are of the view that learned Assam Administrative Tribunal could not have grunted the relief sought for by the Petitioner as well as Respondent No. 3. We feel that the question could be determined and decided exclusively by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution.
It is the common case of the parties that the appointment of the Petitioner and the impugned order of appointment of Respondent No. 3 are ad-hoc appointments. In Rattan Lal and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others, Venkataramiah, J. speaking for the Supreme Court dealt with the question of similar ad-hoc appointments and observed:
These ad-hoc teachers are unnecessarily subjected to an arbitrary ''hiring and firing" policy.... The Government appears to be exploiting this situation. This is not a sound personnel policy. It is bound to have serious repercussions on the educational institutions and the children studying there. The policy of ''ad-hocism'' followed by the state Government for a long period has led to the breach of Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution, Such a situation cannot be permitted to last any longer. It is needless to say that the State Government is expected to function as a model employer.
We, therefore, direct the State Government to take immediate steps to fill up in accordance with the relevant rules the vacancies in which teachers appointed on an-adhoc basis are sow working and to allow all those teachers who are now holding these posts on ad hoc basis to remain in those posts till the vacancies pre duly filled up....
It appears that the Department and the State Government have for a long period followed the policy of ad-hocism which has led to the breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Destitution. We also hold that such a situation can not be permitted to last any longer. The teacher are unnecessarily subjected to arbitrary "hire and fire" policy. It has surely caused serious repercussions on the educational institutions and the children studying there. The policy followed by the Government for a long time has led to the breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. We, therefore, direct the State Government and the Education Department of the Government to take appropriate steps to prepare the appropriate list in accordance with the provisions of Rule 6 of "the Rules" within two months from today. The State Government should approve the list to be prepared by the Department as expeditiously as possible, if prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the, Rules. No stone should be left unturned to cause the list of eligible persons fit for appointment as Headmasters and Assistant Headmasters prepared as expeditiously as possible. The vital role that the teachers play should not be undermined. They mould and build our future generation. We are of the view that the appointment of the teachers should be exclusively based on seniority-cum-merit and on no other consideration. There has been long delay in preparing the list and it should be prepared forthwith. The expenditure to be incurred for early preparation would be a worthwhile spending. Immediately after the list is prepared and the approval of the State Government is obtained, the Headmasters, Assistant Headmasters, etc. should be selected in accordance with the provisions of the Rules.
In the light of the observations made in Rottanlal (supra), we direct that the Petitioner, who is continuing as the Headmaster till the present day, by virtue of the order of the Court shall continue to hold the post of Headmaster until the list is prepared in accordance with the law. If the Petitioner is found to be qualified and fit to be appointed on the basis of the list he may be appointed permanently, If not, the most eligible persons should be appointed as Headmaster. As alluded to, Respondent No. 3, a school teacher is going without pay since September, 1982. It is a tragic event that a teacher should go without pay and allowances. We are of the opinion that Respondent No. 3 should be paid his salary and allowances to which he is entitled by Respondent No. 1 until his position is regularised after the preparation of the list as we find that he has suffered for no fault of his.
In the result, the petition is accepted to the extent indicated above. However, we make no order as to costs in view of the stance taken by Mr. Challha, learned Government Advocate, if for just and appropriate reason the Education Department or the Government cannot prepare the list of eligible teachers for appointment as Headmasters, Assistant Headmasters and so forth, within the period of two months they may ask for extension of time.