The Himachal Pradesh Compulsory Primary Education Act, 1997 – Appointment of teachers under various schemes framed by government – Regularization of – Schemes in question were notified in the year 2001 & 2003 under which appointments were made with regard to Primary Assistant Teachers and teachers in other categories – Challenged in 2012 by individuals who qualified only in the year 2011 – Writ petition allowed by Single Judge – Order set aside by Division Bench – Held: It is true that in the initial schemes notified by the Government there was a condition that such appointees should not seek regularisation/absorption but at the same time for no fault of them, they cannot be denied regularisation/absorption – It is in view of the requirement of the State, their services were extended from time to time – Now all the appointees have completed more than 15 years of service – They are working for meagre salaries – Except the vague submission that such schemes were framed only to make back door entries, there is no material placed on record to buttress such submission – Further, there was unexplained and inordinate delay on the part of the appellants in approaching the High Court in 2012 without even impleading the appointees as party respondents – Writ petitioners did not file rejoinder disputing the averments of the State as stated in the reply affidavit that in view of the hard topography/tribal areas in the State, large number of vacancies were there even single teacher schools and such steps were taken to achieve the object of 1997 Act – Having regard to nature of such appointments, appointments made as per policies cannot be termed as illegal – No case made out to interfere with the impugned judgment of High Court – The Himachal Pradesh Prathmik Sahayak Adhyapak/Primary Assistant Teacher (PAT) Scheme – The Himachal Pradesh Para Teachers (Lecturer School Cadre), Para Teachers (TGT’s) and Para Teachers (C&V) Policy, 2003 – Himachal Pradesh Gram Vidya Upasak Yojna, 2001 – Service Law.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 As is evident from the scheme itself, the object of the scheme appears to be to compulsorily enrol children in schools for elementary and primary education in the remote areas to achieve the goals as set by the Government while enacting The Himachal Pradesh Compulsory Primary Education Act, 1997 with a view to achieve the target of 100% enrolment to children. [Para 11][647-C-D]
1.2 It is true that in the initial schemes notified by the Government there was a condition that such appointees should not seek regularisation/absorption but at the same time for no fault of them, they cannot be denied regularisation/absorption. It is in view of the requirement of the State, their services were extended from time to time and now all the appointees have completed more than 15 years of service. For majority of the appointed teachers under the various schemes benefit was already extended and some left over candidates were denied on account of interim orders passed by this Court. With regard to Primary Assistant Teachers, it is stated that all the candidates have completed Special Teacher Training Qualifying Condensed Course and also had obtained special JBT certificate after 5 years’ continuous service in terms of the Himachal Pradesh Education Code 1985. There was unexplained and inordinate delay on the part of the appellants in approaching the High Court and further having regard to explanation offered by the State about the need of framing such policies to meet the immediate requirement to fill up single teacher schools which were vacant for a very long time, having regard to topographical conditions, which is not even controverted by way of any rejoinder before the High Court. In such view of the matter, taking the totality of peculiar circumstances of these cases, we are of the that the view expressed by this Court in the judgments relied on cannot be applied to the facts of the case on hand. All the appointed candidates are working for the meagre salaries pursuant to schemes notified by the Government. Except the vague submission that such schemes were framed only to make back door entries, there is no material placed on record to buttress such submission. Further it is also to be noted that though such schemes were notified as early as in 2003, nobody has questioned such policies and appointments upto 2012 and 2013. The writ petition, i.e., C.W.P.No.3303 of 2012-A was filed in the year 2012 without even impleading the appointees as party respondents. In the writ petition there was no rejoinder filed by the writ petitioners disputing the averments of the State as stated in the reply affidavit. Having regard to nature of such appointments, appointments made as per policies cannot be termed as illegal. No case is made out to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court. [Para 13][648-G-H; 649-A-F]
J & K Public Service Commission & Ors. v. Dr. Narinder Mohan & Ors. (1994) 2 SCC 630 : [1993] 3 Suppl. SCR 900; Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi (3) & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1 : [2006] 3 SCR 953; Accounts Officer (A&I) A.P.SRTC & Ors. v. P. Chandra Sekhara Rao & Ors. (2006) 7 SCC 488;
Punjab State Warehousing Corpn., Chandigarh v. Manmohan Singh & Anr. (2007) 9 SCC 337 : [2007] 2 SCR 933 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.