IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
Lanusungkum Jamir, J.
Kharamjam Ojit Singh & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Manipur & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 73 of 2019 & WP(C) No. 26 of 2018
Decided On : 22-11-2021
Regularization - Adhoc Teachers - Rules of 1995 - Summary of Acts and Sections
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were appointed on adhoc basis against substantive vacancies and had been serving for 20-23 years. The State respondents took a policy decision for regularization of 288 direct recruit adhoc employees of various Government Departments/Offices in the State of Manipur. The Cabinet approved for regularizing the services of 502 adhoc employees of the Education (S) Department through Special Class-III DPC against the existing vacant post. The Special Class-III DPC recommended the petitioners for regularization.
Finding of the Court:
The impugned order rejecting the recommendation made by the Special Class-III DPC was set aside and quashed. The State respondents were directed to consider the proceedings of the Special Class-III DPC and take appropriate decision for regularization of the petitioners within a period of 1 month.
Issues: The main issue was the rejection of the recommendation made by the Special Class-III DPC for regularization of the adhoc teachers.
Ratio Decidendi: The appointment of the petitioners was found to be irregular but not illegal. The Notification dated 23rd August, 2010 issued by the NCTE did not apply to the petitioners. The State respondents were bound to consider the recommendation of the Special Class-III DPC, which was constituted on the basis of a Cabinet decision.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside and quashed. The State respondents were directed to consider the proceedings of the Special Class-III DPC and take appropriate decision for regularization of the petitioners within a period of 1 month.
JUDGMENT
The Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personal Division) issued a Notification dated 18.10.1995 notifying “Department of Education (Schools), Manipur (Primary Teacher Recruitment Rules, 1995)” (Rules of 1995 in short) under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India wherein the qualification for Primary Teachers has been shown as Higher Secondary or Pre University (2 Yrs. course) or its equivalent from a recognized University/Board.
WP(C) No.73 of 2019
[2] The petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Science Graduate Teacher on Adhoc basis for a period of 3(three) months by order dated 23.1.1999. The petitioner No. 2 was appointed as Primary Teacher on adhoc basis by order dated 16.6.1997 for a period up to 12.09.1997. The petitioner No. 3 was appointed as Science Graduate Teacher on adhoc basis for a period of 3(three) months by order dated 20.1.1999. The petitioner No. 4 was appointed as Assistant Science Graduate Teacher on adhoc basis for a period of 6(six) months by order dated 2.2.1999. The petitioner No. 5 was appointed as Assistant Science Graduate Teacher on adhoc basis for a period of 6 (six) months by order dated 7.11.1998. The petitioner No.6 was appointed as Primary Teacher for a period of 3(three) months on adhoc basis by order dated 22.1.1999. The petitioner No.7 was appointed as Primary Teacher on adhoc basis for a period of 3(three) months by order dated 28.10.1998. The petitioner No.8 was appointed as Assistant Science Graduate Teacher on adhoc basis for a period of 3(three) months by order dated 30.1.1999. The petitioner No.9 was appointed as Assistant Arts Graduate Teacher on adhoc basis for a period of 3(three) months by order dated 1.2.1999 and the petitioner No.10 was also appointed as Primary Techer on adhoc basis for a period up to 12-09-1997 by order dated 16.6.1997. All the petitioners were appointed on adhoc basis against substantive vacancies.
WP(C) No.26 of 2018
[3] The petitioner was also appointed as Assistant Science Graduate Teacher on adhoc basis for a period of 3(three) months by order dated 22.1.1999 against a substantive vacancy.
[4] All the petitioners in both the writ petitions are serving as Primary/Under Graduate/Graduate Teachers/Science Graduate Teachers/Arts Graduate Teachers in the Department of Education (S), Government of Manipur for the past 20-23 years. All the petitioners were qualified in terms of the Rules of 1995. The services of the petitioners were extended from time to time.
[5] The Government of Manipur issued Office Memorandum dated 4.5.2007 on the subject of Discontinuation of Graduate Adhoc Teachers under the Education (S) Department, Manipur with immediate effect and the same reads as under:
“GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR
OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OR EDUCATION(S)
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Imphal, the 4th May, 2007
Subject: Discontinuation of Graduate ad-hoc teachers in the Education (S) Department, Manipur with immediate effect.
No.4/17/2005-SE(S)Pt: Whereas, Government took a policy decision to fill up all the posts held by ad-hoc(s) on regular basis through open competition or by regular promotion whenever it is applicable:
2. Whereas, the ban on direct recruitment was lifted sometime in the later part of 2005 in respect of Education and Health Sector;
3. Whereas, pursuant to the aforesaid policy decision and lifting of ban, all the available posts of Graduate Teachers, both Science and Arts, numbering about 663 were filled on regular basis on the recommendation of a duly constituted DPC/selection committee vide order No.3/43-ADHOC/2006- ED(S) dated 19.4.2007 and, thereafter, all the regular appointees have been posted against the available vacancy including the posts held by ad-hoc employees’
4. Whereas, consequent upon the filling up of vacant Graduate posts (Science and Arts) by the duly appointed Graduate Teachers, no vacant post is left for direct recruitment in the grade of graduate teacher and as such, all the ad-hoc Graduate teachers (both Science and Arts) shall be
Arjun Singh Rathore vs. B.N Chaturvedi (2007) 11 SCC 605
B.N. Nagarajan 1979 (4) SCC 507
Bharat Singh & Ors vs. State of Haryana & Ors (1988) 4 SCC 534
Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd & Ors (2003) 2 SCC 111
F.C.I vs. Head Load Labour Congress (2018) 17 SCC 92
Jivan Lal vs. Pravin Krishna (2016) 15 SCC 747
K. Manjushree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr (2008) 3 SCC 512
Lalremruati vs. Mizoram State Information Commission (2010) 2 GauLT 198
Narendra Kumar Tiwari vs. State of Jharkhand (2018) 8 SCC 238
ONGC Ltd. vs. Petroleum Coal Labour Union (2015) 6 SCC 494
P. Tulsi Das vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh (2003) 1 SCC 364
R.N. Nanjundappa 1972 (1) SCC 409
S.V. Narayanappa 1967 (1) SCR 128
Shyam Telelink Limited now Sistema vs. Union of India (2010) 10 SCC 165
State of Bihar vs. Kirti Narayan Prasad (2019) 2 SLR 84 (SC)
State of Bihar vs. Sunny Prakash (2013) 3 SCC 559
State of Haryana vs. State of Punjab : (2002) 2 SCC 507
State of J & K vs. District Bar Association
State of Karnataka & Ors vs. M.L.Kesari & Ors (2010) 9 SCC 247
State of Punjab vs. Jagdish Kaur (2011) 14 SCC 588
State of Rajasthan vs. R. Dayal (1997) 10 SCC 419
State of Tamil Nadu & Ors vs. K.Shyam Sunder & Ors (2011) 8 SCC 737
The appointment of the petitioners was found to be irregular but not illegal. The State respondents were bound to consider the recommendation of the Special Class-III DPC, which was constituted on th....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner's long service as a Trained Graduate Teacher against a substantive vacant post and the Government's decision to declare the non....
Prolonged service of over ten years without legal hindrance can qualify employees for regularization, regardless of the initial nature of their appointments.
The court ruled that the termination of ad hoc teachers' services based on the Government Order was unjust and mandated fresh consideration of their regularization claims under the relevant statutory....
The regularisation of ad-hoc service cannot be claimed as of right and is subject to fulfilling specific conditions.
Contractual special educators' regularization claims deferred to Supreme Court-directed Screening Committee for credential verification, prioritizing existing staff meeting RCI/TET qualifications ami....
Tribunal emphasizes adherence to Supreme Court directions for regularization of contractual teachers based on eligibility and continuous service.
The judgment established the principle that eligibility for regularization under a specific category is contingent upon the nature of the appointment against a sanctioned post. It also emphasized the....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.