SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(MP) 254

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT BENCH AT GWALIOR
G.S. Ahluwalia, J.
Ramgopal Rawat : Vijay Singh Rawat : Vishnu Dutta Sandilya : Dharmendra Singh Jadon - Appellant
Versus
State Of M.P. And Others - Respondents
WP No. 5656/09, WP No. 2928/09, WP No. 5678/09, WP No.6600/2013
Decided On : 02-03-2020

Advocates Appeared:
Shri Jitendra Sharma and Shri Anuraj Sharma, Advocates, for the Appellants in all petitions; Shri P.S. Raghuvanshi, Government Advocate, for the State in all petitions; Shri MPS Raghuvanshi, Advocate, for the Respondents No. 4, 6 & 7 in WP No.5656/2009, No. 6, 7, 8 & 9 in WP No.2928/2009, No. 6 in WP No. 5678/2009 & No. 6 ^& 7 in WP No.6600/2013

The principle of negative equality is not applicable under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Headnote:

Absorption - Teacher Appointment - Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Shiksha Karmis (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997 - 1999-2000 inspection report - Writ Appeal No.260/2009 - Article 14 of the Constitution of India - Mangalam Organics Limited Vs. Union of India (2017) 7 SCC 221 - Union of India and another Vs. International Trading Co. and another (2003) 5 SCC 437 - Doiwala Sehkari Shram Samvida Samiti Ltd. Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others (2007) 11 SCC 64 1 - Vishal Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and others (2007) 11 SCC 172 - State of Kerala v. K. Prasad - Negative Equality Principle

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a teacher, sought absorption by the State Government after the school he was working in was taken over. The State Government rejected his absorption on the grounds of not meeting minimum qualifications. The petitioner challenged this decision.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner did not meet the minimum qualifications for the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-II and that there were no vacancies for the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III. The court also held that the principle of negative equality is not applicable under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Issues: The main issues were the petitioner's eligibility for absorption and the applicability of the principle of negative equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding that the petitioner did not meet the minimum qualifications for the available posts and that the principle of negative equality is not applicable under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court held that no case was made out warranting interference.

JUDGMENT

1. By this common order WP No. 5656/09 (Ramgopal Rawat Vs. State of MP & Ors), WP No.2928/09 (Vijay Singh Rawat Vs. State of MP & Ors), WP No. 5678/09 (Vishnu Dutta Sandilya Vs. State of MP & Ors) and WP No. 6600/2013 (Dharmendra Singh Jadon Vs. State of M.P. and Ors.) shall be disposed of.

2. For the sake of convenience, the facts of Writ Petition No.5656/2009 shall be taken into consideration.

3. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 28/11/2008 passed by respondent no.2 in case No.Anudan/J.20/93-04/1186.

4. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that earlier the petitioner was appointed on the post of Upper Division Teacher in Rastra Bhasa Prasar Jan Seva Awam Shiksha Samiti by order dated 1/7/1990. The said school was taken over by the State Government by order dated 13/11/2000, Annexure P/3. The list of Teachers/ employees working in the said school was prepared, however, the name of the petitioner did not find place in the said list, which is marked as Annexure P/4. From the inspection report of 1999-2000, it is clear that the petitioner was an employee working on the post of Upper Division Teacher, Annexure P/5. Since the petitioner was not absorbed by the State Government, therefore, he filed a Writ Petition No.139/2001, which was finally disposed of by order dated 29/6/2006 and the following directions were given:-

'4. Consequently, the resolution dated 19-2- 2000 and the termination order dated 19-2-2000 are hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to conduct an enquiry ignoring the order of termination, as to whether the petitioner fulfills the qualifications for absorption or not and if he is found suitable then a proper order be passed in regard to the petitioner but the petitioner would not be entitled to arrears of salary. If he is found suitable, he would be entitled to continuity of service and other benefits. Necessary orders be passed in this regard within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The enquiry shall be limited only with regard to petitioner's absorption.'

5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Single Judge in Writ Petition No.139/2001, the State preferred a Writ Appeal No.363/2008, Annexure P/9, which was dismissed by order dated 10/9/2008 and accordingly, the case of the petitioner for his absorption was considered by the Commissioner, Public Education and it was found that the absorption of the teachers has not been done in accordance with law, therefore, the entire list of absorbed teachers was set aside and a new screening committee was constituted by order dated 17/10/2008, Annexure P/10.

6. It is submitted that against the order dated 17/10/2008 passed by the Commissioner, Public Education, Bhopal, Annexure P/10, Writ Petition No.5193/2008 (s) was preferred by already absorbed private respondents, which was dismissed by order dated 7/5/2009. The order passed by the Writ Court was challenged by the private respondents by filing Writ Appeal No.260/2009, 261/2009 and 262/2009 and all the three writ appeals were decided by a common judgment dated 23/7/2009 and the order passed by the Writ Court in Writ Petition No.139/2001 was set aside as well as the order dated 17/10/2008 passed by the Commissioner, Public Education, Bhopal, Annexure P/10, was also set aside with the following observations:-

'9. So far as allegation about eligibility of the present appellants is concerned, learned counsel for the State has invited attention of this Court to the rules namely the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Shiksha Karmis (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997 to show that the appellants writ petitioners do not fulfill the eligibility criteria. However, the rules referred to above do not help the respondents State because the said rules are applicable only to the employees of Panchayats. In the present case, the appellants writ petitioners are absorbed in the School Educa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top