JUDGMENT :

Neela K. Gokhale J.

1. Rule. By consent of parties, rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. The Petitioners in all these Petitions raise an identical issue. They all seek to assail Clauses No. 1, 3 and 4 of the Government Resolution (“GR”) dated 3rd August 2006. as being illegal and contrary to the recommendations of Chiplunkar Samiti accepted by the State and further seek status The Petitioners were all initially appointed as part-time librarians in various institutions. They now seek an order that from the dates of those initial appointments as part-time librarians, they should be held to be full-time libraries. They claim this is only ‘notional’ but agree that such an order will indeed have monetary implications (for any difference in pay scales and retiral benefits). They also say that the GR in question is contrary to the recommendations of the Chiplunkar Committee, and which recommendations the State Government accepted. They seek orders that they be reckoned as full-time librarians.

3. The Petitioners are employed in their respective Respondent educational institutions as part-time librarians. The 2nd Respondent in all Petitions is the corresponding Education Officer/Director of Education of various regions in the 1st Respondent, State of Maharashtra.

4. The Petitioners were working as part-time librarians in various aided schools across Maharashtra. In 1994, the State Government appointed a committee under the chairmanship of Shri VV Chiplunkar, former Director of Education of the State, to ascertain the prevailing scope of work of non-teaching staff in educational institutions, the terms and conditions of their engagement and make recommendations in that regard. The Chiplunkar Committee submitted a report. The State accepted the report and resolved to amend the provisions of Secondary and Higher Secondary Code to the extent of such acceptance. Accordingly, it notified a GR dated 28th June 1994.

5. The Committee recommended a staffing structure. The number of posts, full-time or otherwise, were to be in proportion to the strength of students. One post of a full-time librarian was recommended if the strength of students was between 1001 to 1500. The strength of students in each of the Respondent institutions was either 1000 on the date of the GR or was increased to 1000 and more after the GR.

6. Subsequently, the State Government notified the impugned GR dated 3rd August 2006. This GR, in aid of the earlier 1994 GR, provided for upgrading the posts of part-time librarians to full-time librarians where, in a particular school, the student strength in a school was more than 1000 and part-time librarians had served for at least five years. However, this was subject to certain conditions mentioned in the GR. One of the conditions was that the upgrading of a part-time librarian was to be considered as ‘fresh appointment’ and not a ‘promotion’, and any such appointment was made subject to a two-year probation period. Accordingly, the Petitioners and others similarly placed, all of whom had completed five years as part-time librarians, were granted the status of full-time librarians subject to the student-strength requirement and these other two conditions (of the appointments being ‘fresh appointments’ and with a two-year probation period). They were also granted entitlements as per the pay-scale of full-time librarians as ‘fresh appointments’ with effect from 3rd August 2006.

7. The Petitioners were all part-time librarians. They seek benefits of Chiplunkar Committee recommendations, accepted by the State Government, on the presumption that the 1994 GR itself created full-time posts. The Petitioners are also aggrieved by Clauses 1, 3 and 4 of the 3rd August 2006 GR: they contend that although the 2006 GR led to the absorption of Petitioners as fulltime librarians, it considers their appointments as fresh ones and provid