AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the Advertisement dated 18/2/2019 (Annex.3), whereby, candidates were
called for preparation of panel for deputation on various posts under the ‘Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan’ at State, District and Block Level Offices,
and order dated 12/2/19 (Annex.4), whereby, the Secretary issued instructions for taking employees on deputation. Further prayer has been made that
petitioners be not disturbed from the post of Resource Persons.
It is inter alia indicated in the writ petitions that petitioners are working as Resource Persons. They were initially appointed on the post of Teacher
Grade - III and are presently working on the post of Teacher Grade â€" I i.e School Lecturer. It is claimed that by order dated 26/9/18 (Annex.1 in
C.W. No. 2952/2019) the petitioners were absorbed as Resource Persons and the petitioners who were working as Additional Block Elementary
Education Officers (‘ABEEO’) joined as Resource Persons and they are continuing as such. It is claimed that the said appointment was
approved by the competent authority as is evident from the order itself. It is then indicated that the State issued a circular/order for conducting walk-
in-interview for deputation with regard to the posts being held by the petitioners inasmuch as in all 601 posts of Resource Persons have been indicated
and same have been shown as vacant post for all the blocks. It is submitted that as the petitioners have already been absorbed on the post of
Resource Persons in various blocks by order dated 26/9/18 (Annex.1), there is apparently no reason for the respondents to now re-advertise the said
posts for being filled up by deputation and, therefore, the advertisement to the extent of posts held by them deserves to be set aside.
Reply to the writ petitions have been filed by the respondents inter alia indicating that the petitioners who were working as ABEEO in respective
offices of Block Elementary Education Officers were accommodated as Resource Persons in view of instructions issued pursuant to the order by the
State Government on 8/8/18 but the same was not approved by the competent authority. Submissions have been made that approval of transfer on
deputation in the department of education is required to be done by the concerned Minister, however the same was not put up before the Minister.
Further submissions have been made that the petitioners were neither taken on deputation nor they were absorbed, however they were temporarily
accommodated due to change in set up by the Rajasthan Council of School Education. Submissions were made that if the petitioners are interested in
deputation as Resource Persons there are required to apply pursuant to the advertisement and as such the petitions deserve to be dismissed.
During the course of submissions, the respondents were directed to place on record the requisite material in respect of the contention raised in the
reply and an additional affidavit has been filed by the respondents in this regard.
Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the submissions as noticed hereinbefore. It was submitted that vide Annex.1 the petitioners were
appointed on deputation as Resource Persons with the respondent Council and the said appointment of the petitioners was approved by the competent
authority, which aspect is reflected from the order Annex.1. It is further submitted that the instructions (Annex.4) required that only in cases where
the approval has not been received from the concerned Minister and/or in cases where the period of deputation has been for more than 3 years in
those cases walk-in-interview be held and as such there was no occasion for the respondents to issue advertisement for walk-in-interview even for
the posts held by the petitioners.
Submissions have also been made that the plea raised by the petitioners based on the note sheets after order dated 8/8/18 (Annex.R/2) produced along
with the additional affidavit supports the case of the petitioners and, therefore, the advertisement deserves to be set aside to the extent the posts are
being held by the petitioners.
Reliance has been placed on Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel vs. Union of India : (2012) 7 SCC 757.
Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions. It was submitted that the petitioners were working as ABEEO in the office
of Block Elementary Education Officer. When the set up was changed vide order dated 8/8/18 wherein the requisite eligibility for the post of ABEEO
was changed from Lecturer to Principal and a new position of Resource Person, for which the eligibility was School Lecturer, was created, by way of
stop gap arrangement the petitioners, who were working as ABEEO were accommodated. The petitioners were not taken on deputation as Resource
Persons which aspect is also evident from (Annex.1) and as they were only accorded posting as they were then working as ABEEO. As on a stop
gap arrangement they were posted as Resource Persons, the petitioners have no right.
Submissions were also made that in terms of Rules of Business, for deputation the approval of the concerned Minister is required to be obtained,
which has not been accorded in the present cases and, therefore, the plea raised by the petitioners claiming their accommodation on stop gap
arrangement as appointment on deputation deserves to be rejected and the writ petitions also deserve to be dismissed.
It is also submitted that as the undertaking was given before this Court the petitioners were permitted to work on the post of Resource Persons, the
consequential orders for according appointments to the petitioners as School Lecturers could not be passed as those who have not approached the
Court, orders in this regard have already been passed.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
The facts are not in dispute that the petitioners were working as ABEEO under the Block Elementary Education Officer, which is a post under the
State Government. When the circular dated 8/8/2018 was issued by the respondents providing for the reorganization of the school education
department at Block, District and Zone level, the eligibility for the post of ABEEO was changed from Lecturer to Principal and the same continued as
a post under the State. For the newly created post of Resource Person the eligibility indicated was Lecturer which post was under the ‘Samgra
Shiksha Abhiyan’.
Based on the circular dated 8/8/18, a note sheet (Annex.R/3) was prepared essentially dealing with the transition based on the policy dated 8/8/18.
The part relevant for the present case reads as under:
“
( )
/
- 295 â€â€¦
The above stipulation clearly brings out the fact that the petitioners were working as ABEEO under the State Government, were proposed to be
adjusted and for rest of the posts selections were proposed. A perusal of the note sheet, as produced, does not indicate that the proposal was
approved by the Minister inasmuch as the note sheet contains the last endorsement dated 25/9/2018. Thereafter it appears that on 26/9/18 the Council
issued an order Annex.1 inter alia adjusting the petitioners on the post of Resource Persons, the relevant portion whereof reads as under:
“ 08.08.2018
, /
- , / - ,
/
//
â€
(emphasis supplied)
A perusal of the above order clearly indicates that though it indicates that after obtaining approval from the competent authorities the adjustment is
being done, the order admittedly has been passed by the Council and signed by its Project Director and there is no order passed by the State
Government in this regard.
From the above fact situation, it is apparent that petitioners were working on the post of ABEEO which is a post under the State and on the strength
of note sheet Annex.R/3 and order Annex.R/1 the petitioners were only adjusted as Resource Persons. It would be relevant to notice that the note
sheet Annex.R/3 and order Annex.R/1 pertains to the Council only and no where the Department of Education has come into picture insofar as the
said orders have been passed. Whereafter, the State Government on 12/2/2019 (Annex.4) directed the Council to hold walk-in-interview for selections
on the various posts under the Council based on which the advertisement (Annex.3) was issued.
In view of the above fact situation, wherein, the petitioners were only working on the post under the State as ABEEO and as the post of Resource
Persons is under the Council, merely by passing of the order Annex.1 it cannot be said that the petitioners ipso facto went on deputation with the
Council and the requisite method adopted in this regard vide Annex.3 is not required to be undergone by the petitioners. The Reliance placed on the
note sheet (Annex.R/3) indicating that the existing ABEEOs be adjusted and rest of the posts be filled in by selection cannot create any kind of
estoppel against the State in ordering for selection for all the posts of Resource Person for posting on deputation. The order Annex.1 passed can only
be described as providing for a stop gap arrangement only with a view to accord legitimacy to the period spent by the petitioners on the post of
Resource Persons.
So far as the reliance placed on the judgment in the case of Ashok Kumar Ratiwal (supra) is concerned, the principle laid down therein would apply
only in a case where the order of deputation as such exists. The order of adjusting an employee on a deputation post by itself cannot be termed as an
appointment on deputation so as to attract the principles laid down in the said judgment.
In view of the above discussion, as it is apparent that the petitioners were merely adjusted as Resource Persons by order dated 26/9/18 and were not
appointed on deputation, as claimed, no case for interference in the present writ petitions is made out. There is no substance in the writ petitions and
the same are, therefore, dismissed.