2020 Supreme(Gau) 398

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Mir Alfaz Ali, J.
Jarjum Yomgam - Appellant
Versus
State of Arunachal Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 153 of 2018
Decided On : 04-03-2020

Regularization of contractual teachers in violation of statutory rules and constitutional provisions is illegal and void, and such teachers are not entitled to protection under Article 311 of the Constitution.

Headnote:

REGULARIZATION OF CONTRACTUAL TEACHERS - ARUNACHAL PRADESH EDUCATION RULES, 2010 - APPOINTMENT OF CONTRACTUAL TEACHERS AS TGT AND PRT BY WAY OF REGULARIZATION - VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14, 16 AND 311 OF THE CONSTITUTION - VALIDITY OF IMPUGNED ORDER WITHDRAWING REGULARIZATION - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - COURT'S ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners were appointed on contractual basis as Asstt. Teachers and Junior Teachers respectively under the scheme of Sarva Siiksha Abhiyan (SSA). On 21-06-2017 the Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh announced a proposal for appointment of approximately 1000 nos. of contractual teachers working under the SSA by way of regularization in a phased manner, against the regular vacancies in the Department of Education. Pursuant to such announcement, the Joint Director, Elementary Education, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh directed the Deputy Directors of Schools, Education Department of various districts to furnish the list of the contractual teachers working under the SSA scheme, who have cleared the Arunachal Pradesh Teachers'' Eligibility Test or Central Teachers Eligibility Test (APTET/CTET). Accordingly, district-wise list of such teachers working under the SSA, who were found suitable for regularization was prepared, which was approved by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh vide the U.O. No. 279 dated 07-12-2007. On the basis of the said approval of the Government, all the petitioners (122 in numbers), who were working under the SSA, on contractual basis, were regularized and appointed against the permanent vacancies. At the relevant time there were only 122 regular vacancies, of which 63 for Trained Graduate Teachers (TGT) and 59 for Primary Teachers (PRT). On the basis of such regularization all the petitioners have joined their new posts of trained graduate teachers as well as primary teachers respectively after resigning from their existing posts of contractual teachers under the SSA scheme. However, a representation dated 18-12-2017 was filed by one Jumpe Keyu (Respondent No. 18), who was also an APTET qualified contractual teacher under the SSA, alleging that the regularization and appointment against regular vacancies were done on the basis of pick and choose basis and without following any procedure and also without maintaining seniority. Upon receiving the representation submitted by Jumpe Keyu, who claimed to have represented all the TET qualified teachers working under the SSA, the Chief Secretary of the State of Arunachal Pradesh made a note on the representation, stating that the allegations made therein were serious and directed the Secretary, Department of Education to submit a detailed report on the said representation. After 3(three) days of submitting the representation, the Secretary, Vigilance Department wrote a letter dated 21-12-2017 to the Secretary, Education, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh stating that the Vigilance Department was examining the matter pertaining to regularization of 122 nos. of contractual teachers working under the SSA and Chief Minister also vide order dated 21-12-2017 asked to withdraw the order of regularization of said 122 nos. of SSA teachers. Accordingly on the same day, i.e., on 21-12-2017, the Secretary, Education Department passed an order withdrawing the earlier order of regularization dated 07-12-2017, whereby, the petitioners were regularized against vacancies of 63 trained graduate teachers and 59 primary teachers. Aggrieved by the said order withdrawing the regularization of the petitioners, the petitioners have filed the present series of writ petitions.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the appointment of the petitioners as TGT and PRT by way of regularization was illegal and violative of the Arunachal Pradesh Education Rules, 2010 governing the appointment and condition of service of the TGT and PRT, as well as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The court further held that the petitioners were not entitled to protection under Article 311 of the Constitution as the regularization/appointment of the petitioners itself was illegal. The court also held that the impugned order withdrawing the regularization/appointment of the petitioners was not violative of the principles of natural justice, as the petitioners were not entitled to any opportunity of being heard before passing the impugned orders withdrawing the regularization/appointment of the petitioners, since the regularization/appointment itself was illegal and void.

Issues: 1. Whether the impugned orders withdrawing the regularization/appointment of the petitioners was violative of Article 311 of the Constitution ? 2. Whether the impugned order was violative of the principles of natural justice?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The appointment of the petitioners as TGT and PRT by way of regularization was illegal and violative of the Arunachal Pradesh Education Rules, 2010 governing the appointment and condition of service of the TGT and PRT, as well as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 2. The petitioners were not entitled to protection under Article 311 of the Constitution as the regularization/appointment of the petitioners itself was illegal. 3. The impugned order withdrawing the regularization/appointment of the petitioners was not violative of the principles of natural justice, as the petitioners were not entitled to any opportunity of being heard before passing the impugned orders withdrawing the regularization/appointment of the petitioners, since the regularization/appointment itself was illegal and void.

Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed. The court clarified that the order passed in these writ petitions shall not affect the service of the petitioners as contractual teachers and the petitioners may continue as contractual teachers subject to the terms and conditions of their appointment as contractual teachers under the SSA Scheme.