Surender Kumar & others vs State of Haryana & another

This judgment shall dispose of CWP-6614-2014, CWP-26067- 2015, CWP-9547 & 391-2016, involving common questions of law and

facts. However, to dictate orders, facts have been taken from CWP-6614- 2014 titled Surender Kumar & others Vs. State of Haryana &

another.

Petitioners challenge the order dated 28.02.2014 (Annexure P- 14) whereby their services as IED volunteers were dispensed with and they

were relieved by the Project Director-respondent No.2. Challenge has also been raised to the letter dated 30.10.2013 (Annexure P-11) whereby

directions were issued for refund of the honorarium which was in excess of 2 months, since the engagement was for a period of 10 months and

payment had been released for 12 months.

Counsels for the petitioners have argued that the petitioners'' appointment was in pursuance of the selection process vide advertisement

(Annexure P-2) and therefore, dispensing with their services was unjustified. Reference is, accordingly, made to the said advertisement issued

whereby monthly honorarium was fixed at Rs.3000/- per month for the recruitment of IED volunteers to serve in Shiksha Pariyojana at the Block

level.

The stand of the respondents, on the other hand, is that petitioners have been engaged on honorarium basis for conducting voluntary work

including the Inclusive Education Scheme which was one of the components of the Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan Programme, which was being

implemented through the Haryana School Shiksha Pariyojana Parisadh Panchkula (HSSPP), which was a Society registered under the Societies

Registration Act, 1860. The annual budget for Inclusive Education Scheme was approved every year depending upon the number of children with

special needs, identified and enrolled in Government schools. The petitioners had not been appointed against sanctioned posts but only to provide

support to the children with special needs and also to the special teachers appointed in the Block. The engagement was neither a job nor an

appointment against any sanctioned post but was purely a voluntary work for which remuneration @ Rs.3000/- per month was being paid. The

honorarium was given by the Ministry of Human Resource & Development for 10 months @ Rs.4000/- per month. The engagement as volunteers

for next year completely depended upon the approval of the programme by the Project Approval Board of the Ministry of Human Resource &

Development. For the current year 2014- 15, the approval had not been given and therefore, action had been taken by relieving the petitioners.

The factual background, thus, being clarified, it would be apparent that the petitioners were only volunteers, as such, who were only given

honorarium to take part in the Scheme, as such, for the benefits of the children who need special requirements. The petitioners, as such, have no

legal right and it was not an appointment in strict terms whereby the petitioners could seek protection that they were being relieved without any

basis. The project being financed by the Ministry of Human Resource & Development and not being financed for the next year, Project Director

had rightly dispensed with their services. It has been further clarified that petitioner No.1 had joined on 28.03.2013 and therefore, having worked

upto February, 2014, were only entitled for the remuneration for that period. The petitioners, thus, can seek no legal right, as such, to continue or

claim that the letter dated 28.02.2014 suffers any legal infirmity.

The argument raised that under the Right to Education Act, 2009 the petitioners had some legal right, has also been controverted by for Union

of India that unqualified teachers cannot be appointed as per the Right to Education Act and only technically qualified teachers could teach

children, especially children with special needs.

In such circumstances, the action of the respondents in relieving the petitioners from voluntary services of IEDs cannot be faulted in any manner.

The terms of the engagement, as such, as per Annexure P-1, would go on to show that it was a voluntary work and the petitioners were bound by

the said terms and conditions. Same reads as under:

You have been selected to do voluntary work under this IE SSA scheme by the committee. You will be required to provide/support to the

children with special needs his or her parents and also to the special teachers appointed in the block. It is neither a job nor an appointment against

any job. It is purely a voluntary work for which remuneration of Rs.3000/- per month will be given.

Accordingly, in view of the above, the petitioners, now, cannot turn around and say that it is a job or an appointment which is permanent in

nature and their services cannot be dispensed with. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present writ petitions, the same are hereby dismissed.