Point of Law: Once the courts upheld the contentions of respondents, they cannot be allowed to defeat the rights of petitioners by creating fictional separate class of employees.

ORDER :

Satyen Vaidya

By way of instant petitions, petitioners have prayed for grant of benefit of regularization of their services w.e.f. 1.4.2018. Since common questions of facts and law are involved, all these petitions are being decided by a common judgment.

Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the case are as under:

1. PETITIONER’S CASE

(i) The facts in CWP 342 of 2021 are being considered hereunder for the sake of precision and also to avoid prolixity.

(ii) Petitioners were appointed in 2006-07 against the posts of Lecturers School Cadre/ Lecturer School (New)/PGTs under a scheme formulated by the State Government known as Grant-in-aid to Parent Teachers Association Rules 2006 (for short, ‘2006 Rules’).

(iii) State Government vide Notification dated 16.08.2013 decided to take over of services of petitioners on contract basis. Such decision became subject matter of challenge through Civil Writ Petitions filed before this Court. However, the controversy was set at rest by Judgment dated 9.12.2014 passed by a Division Bench of this Court ruling in favour of Government’s decision and thereafter way was cleared for taking over of services of teachers on contract basis.

(iv) Services of petitioners were eventually taken over on contract basis vide orders dated 3.1.2015, 7.1.2015 and 15.1.2015.

(v) On 11.5.2018 State Government issued Notification directing regularisation of all its contract employees who had completed 3 years contract service as on 31.3.2018. Petitioners though also were eligible for regularisation having rendered three years contract service as on 31.3.2018, but were not regularised purportedly for the reason that appeals against the judgment dated 9.12.2014 were pending before Hon’ble Supreme court.

(vi) Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeals against judgment dated 9.12.2014 of this Court vide its judgment dated 17.4.2020 [reported in (2020) 5 SCC 732]. Petitioners submitted their detailed representation to the respondents.

(vii) Services of petitioners were regularised w.e.f. 20.8.2020 vide orders dated 5.8.2020.

2. PETITIONER’S GRIEVANCE

Petitioners claim regularisation w.e.f. 1.4.2018 in pursuance to decision of the Government dated 11.5.2018 alleging as under :

(a) Discrimination with all other contract employees who got the benefit of regularisation from 1.4.2018 in pursuance to Government decision dated 11.5.2018 and consequent violation of Articles 14 of 16 of the constitution.

(b) Arbitrary denial of rights of petitioners by respondents taking shelter of the pendency of appeals before the Supreme Court.

(c) Arbitrary fixation of date of regularisation as 20.8.2020 in the case of petitioners despite dismissal of appeals by the Supreme Court.

3. RESPONDENT’S STAND AND JUSTIFICATION

From the initial reply of respondents and their supplementary affidavits available on record following defences can be culled out:

(a) PTA provided teachers were not regularised due to pendency of SLP 1426 of 2015.

(b) The appointment of PTA lecturers was not in accordance with R & P Rules. Their initial appointment was under a Policy, whereas other lecturers appointed by the Government on contract basis were recruited as per R & P Rules through State Service Commission.

(c) Though the Supreme Court and High Court had observed the initial appointments of petitioners under the 2006 Police as legal but there were no directions to regularise their services.

(d) State has the power to take conscious decisions which cannot be interfered with.

(e) The mode and purpose of appointment of PTA teachers was different, their engagement was made for particular school by the PTA of the School that too as a stop gap arrangement, whereas appointment of others was made through State Service Commission.

(f) The regularisation cannot be claimed as matter of right from a particular date. Conscious decision is taken by the Government regarding regularisation and thereafter the regularisation is made from a particular date as decided.

(g) In addition, it has