Back
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Mir Alfaz Ali, J.
Yasi Gaduk - Appellant
Versus
State of Arunachal Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 154 of 2018
Decided On : 04-03-2020
REGULARIZATION/APPOINTMENT - ARUNACHAL PRADESH EDUCATION RULES, 2010 - ARTICLE 311 - ARTICLE 14 - ARTICLE 16 - APPOINTMENT OF CONTRACTUAL TEACHERS AS TGT AND PRT BY WAY OF REGULARIZATION - VIOLATION OF RULES AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS - WITHDRAWAL OF REGULARIZATION/APPOINTMENT - VALIDITY - COURT ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, contractual teachers under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA), were regularized and appointed as Trained Graduate Teachers (TGT) and Primary Teachers (PRT) against regular vacancies in the Department of Education. The regularization was done without following any procedure or maintaining seniority. Upon receiving a representation alleging irregularities, the Chief Secretary directed the Secretary, Department of Education to submit a report. The Secretary, Vigilance Department wrote to the Secretary, Education, stating that the matter was being examined and an FIR was lodged for missing of the file pertaining to the regularization. The impugned order was passed withdrawing the regularization/appointment of the petitioners.
Finding of the Court:
1. The regularization/appointment of the petitioners as TGT and PRT was illegal and void as it was contrary to the Arunachal Pradesh Education Rules, 2010 governing the appointment and condition of service of TGT and PRT and 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 appointment itself was illegal. 3. The impugned order withdrawing the regularization/appointment was not violative of Article 311 of the Constitution as the petitioners were not regular employees and did not hold civil posts. 4. The impugned order was not vitiated for want of recording reasons as the reasons were available in other connected documents and related office files. 5. The petitioners could not be held to have suffered any prejudice for not following the principle of natural justice as the regularization/appointment was illegal and there could be no alternative but to withdraw it. 6. The government was not denuded of the power to withdraw or rescind an illegal or void order and the impugned order was well within the competence of the government.
Issues: 1. Whether the regularization/appointment of the petitioners as TGT and PRT was illegal and void? 2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to protection under Article 311 of the Constitution? 3. Whether the impugned order withdrawing the regularization/appointment was violative of Article 311 of the Constitution? 4. Whether the impugned order was vitiated for want of recording reasons? 5. Whether the petitioners suffered any prejudice for not following the principle of natural justice? 6. Whether the government had the power to withdraw or rescind an illegal or void order?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The appointment of contractual teachers as TGT and PRT by way of regularization was illegal and violative of the statutory rules and constitutional provisions. 2. The petitioners were not entitled to protection under Article 311 of the Constitution as the appointment itself was illegal. 3. The impugned order withdrawing the regularization/appointment was not violative of Article 311 of the Constitution as the petitioners were not regular employees and did not hold civil posts. 4. The impugned order was not vitiated for want of recording reasons as the reasons were available in other connected documents and related office files. 5. The petitioners could not be held to have suffered any prejudice for not following the principle of natural justice as the regularization/appointment was illegal and there could be no alternative but to withdraw it. 6. The government was not denuded of the power to withdraw or rescind an illegal or void order and the impugned order was well within the competence of the government.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed. 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.
JUDGMENT
Mir Alfaz Ali, J. - All these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been filed by the respective petitioners praying for setting aside the impugned order vide Memo No. AR/SSA/ESTT/APTET & CTET/Regu/Teacher/2017-18 dated 21-12-2017, whereby the regularization/appointment of the petitioners as Trained Graduate Teachers (for short TGT) and Primary Teachers (for short PRT) respectively, under the department of Elementary Education, Government of Arunachal Pradesh vide common order No.AR/SSA/ESTT/APTET/CTET/ Regu/teacher/2016-2017 dated 07-12-2017 has been withdrawn. The petitioners also pray for issuance of direction to the respondent authorities to allow the petitioners to discharge their duties as Trained Graduate Teachers (TGT) and Primary Teachers (PRT) and to release their pay and allowance. By the Writ Petition No. 9 of 2018 initially 135 nos. of petitioners approached this Court. However, 17 out of 135 petitioners have withdrawn leaving 118 in the fray.
2. The facts leading to the present writ petitions are as follows : The petitioners were appointed on contractual basis as Asstt. Teachers and Junior Teachers respectively under the scheme of Sarva Siiksha Abhiyan (for short SSA). The Asstt. Teachers were appointed for teaching students of Class I to IV and junior teachers were appointed for teaching students of Class VI to VIII. It has been stated that approximately 6850 teachers in both categories, i.e., Assistant Teachers and Junior Teachers were appointed on contractual basis under the SSA in the State of Arunachal Pradesh and such appointment started from the year 2003. 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. In the meantime, 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
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
