IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
T.V. NALAWADE, SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.
Rajeev - Appellant
Versus
Union of India and Others - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 9923 of 2014, 11862 of 2015, 3976 of 2017, 11862, 5851, 1893, 1045 of 2015; Contempt Petition No. 510 of 2018, 507 of 2018
Decided On : 06-03-2019
Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14, 19 and 309 - Relief of injunction - Issued orders of termination - Granted interim relief - Petitioners from Writ Petition are working as Junior Engineers- Petitioner No is working as Computer Programmer - Some Petitioners from Writ Petition are working as Senior Account Clerks as Assistant Programme Officers and as Stenographers - Some Petitioners from Writ Petition are working as Data Entry Operator MIS Coordinator Computer Programmer and one Petitioner is working as Executive Engineer- Some Petitioners from Writ Petition are working as District Coordinator Assistant Program Officers Driver etc - Thus posts involved in proceedings are of aforesaid different nature - Petitioners are working in districts in SSA project - Their initial dates of appointments are different but all of them were given appointments on contract basis on consolidated pay - After completion of first contract period Petitioners were again engaged on contract basis on same posts and in all cases consolidated pay was increased from time to time - Very few of Petitioners had completed service of aforesaid nature of more than years on dates of petitions and most of other Petitioners had recently received appointment orders prior to coming to this Court and those particulars are being given at proper place - Before considering rival contentions it is desirable to mention schemes projects of Central Government which were started and which are still there- projects were started for universalization of primary education – Held, High Court was wholly wrong in reaching conclusion that there was invidious discrimination - If we cannot allow a wrong to perpetrate an employee after committing misappropriation of money is dismissed form service and subsequently that order is withdrawn and he is reinstated into service - Can a similarly circumstanced person claim equality under Section 14 for reinstatement? answer is obviously No - In a converse case in first instance one may be wrong but wrong order cannot be foundation for claiming equality for enforcement of same order - As state earlier his right must be founded upon enforceable right to entitle him to equality treatment for enforcement thereof - A wrong decision by Government does not give a right to enforce wrong order and claim parity or equality - Two wrongs can never make a right - This Court is not expected to give such directions to State as it involves policy matter and breach of mandate of Articles 14 19 and 309 of Constitution of India- If proposition made by learned counsel for Petitioners is accepted and relief is given by this Court it will create a bad precedent - petition stand dismissed
T.V. NALAWADE, J.
All the petitions are filed for regularization of services of Petitioners, who are working in Central Government Project by name "Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan" (in short "SSA"). The relief of injunction is also claimed to prevent the Respondents from terminating their services. It appears that as against some Petitioners, orders of termination were issued. This Court granted interim relief in favour of Petitioners and due to the interim relief, the Petitioners are still working in SSA.
2. Both the sides are heard.
3. The Petitioners from Writ Petition No.9923 of 2014 (Petitioner Nos.1 to 9) are working as Junior Engineers. Petitioner No.10 is working as Computer Programmer. Some Petitioners from Writ Petition No.1045 of 2015 are working as Senior Account Clerks, as Assistant Programme Officers and as Stenographers. Some Petitioners from Writ Petition No.5851 of 2015 are working as Data Entry Operator, MIS Coordinator, Computer Programmer and one Petitioner is working as the Executive Engineer. Some Petitioners from Writ Petition No.11862 of 2015 are working as District Coordinator, Assistant Program Officers, Driver etc. Thus, the posts involved in the proceedings are of aforesaid different nature. The Petitioners are working in Beed, Latur, Parbhani, Aurangabad, Osmanabad and Hingoli districts in SSA project. Their initial dates of appointments are different but all of them were given appointments on contract basis on consolidated pay. After completion of first contract period, the Petitioners were again engaged on contract basis on the same posts and in all the cases, the consolidated pay was increased from time to time. Very few of the Petitioners had completed the service of aforesaid nature of more than 10 years on the dates of petitions and most of the other Petitioners had recently received appointment orders prior to coming to this Court and those particulars are being given at proper place.
4. Before considering the rival contentions, it is desirable to mention the schemes, projects of Central Government, which were started and which are still there. The projects were started for universalization of the primary education. The first project was started in the year 1994 and it was called as District Primary Education Project (for short "DPEP"). In accordance with the project of Central Government, the State Government issued first Government Resolution dated 7th May, 1994 through the School Education Department. This project was a pilot project and it was to be implemented in few districts of very State where the literacy rate of females was below the national average rate. Following were the aims of the project:
(a) To admit all boys and girls below 16 years of age in primary schools;
(b) To impart education to such children by formal and informal methods and to see that they complete primary education; and
(c) To take special steps for spreading literacy in the form of primary education in females, the persons of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and adults of weaker sections of society.
The Government Resolution of 7th May, 1994 shows that for implementation of aforesaid project, the State Government had created one autonomous body, which was to work at State level, District level and Village level. This autonomous body was given name "Maharashtra Prathamik Shikshan Parishad" (in short "MPSP"). This body was registered as society. This project was to get assistance of the World Bank and the body was created and registered even prior to the date of Government Resolution.
5. Under the aforesaid Government Resolution, in the first phase, five districts of this State like Aurangabad, Latur, Nanded, Osmanabad and Parbhani were selected. After 1994, Parbhani district was bifurcated and one more district viz. Hingoli district was created and the scheme was applied to that district also. In one petition,
A. Umarani Vs. Registrar Cooperative Societies and Other
Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited and another Vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly and another
Ekta Shakti Foundation Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Geeta Bhaskar Pendse Vs. The Principal, Ayurved College, Sion and Other
Narendra Kumar Tiwari and Other Vs. State of Jharkhand and Other
Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs. Umadevi and Ors
Sheo Narain Nagar and Other Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.