KARNATAKA STATE AIDED PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS ASSOCIATION REGD KANNADA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKARESENTED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition, presented by the Association of the Karnataka State Aided Primary School teachers' Association, joined by some other teachers, was one for quashing a portion of the order dated 9-6-2005 (copy at Annexure-B) passed by the State Government, which is a scheme for the purpose of rehabilitating the teachers who were facing threat of retrenchment in view of student, strength of the institutions having been come down and the scheme having been propounded for the purpose of rehabilitating such number of teachers who had been identified as excess upto 15-2-2005 and also a scheme providing for rehabilitation programme being in operation upto 31-5-2007, where after the scheme will be closed.

(2.) THE complaint of the petitioners is about the limiting of the benefit under the scheme only in respect of those who had been identified as excess upto 15-2-2005 as also keeping the. scheme open only upto 31-5-2007 which according to the petitioner is discriminatory vis-a-vis those who do not come within the scope of the scheme,

(3.) RESPONDENTS had been put on notice and they have, made their stand clear by filing statement of objections, additional statement of objections and yet another additional statement of objections followed by the latest affidavit sworn to by Sri G Chandrashekar, Director of Primary education, inter alia, furnishing the certain data that had been called for by this Court in terms of the order dated 7-2-2006, which reads as under: petitioners' main ground of attack, in respect of the scheme formulated by the government in terms of Annexure-B to the writ petition is that it is discriminatory in nature making an artificial classification and discriminating as between such, of those teachers who have been identified as excess teachers in private aided institutions as on 15-2-2005 vis-a-vis those who may possibly become excess for the very reason but after this date. The grievance of the petitioners as against the scheme now envisages by the government, for the purpose of rehabilitating such of those teachers who have been found excess in aided institutions as on 16-2-2005 is that some of the teachers who are also fating identical or similar situation are not provided such benefit and therefore drawing a cut off date without arty justification for making a distinction as between those who become excess before this date and those who become excess after this date is therefore discriminatory etc. On such premise, the scheme formulated by the government vide Annexure-B is sought to be quashed and a consequential direction is sought for extending similar benefit or to /annulate a suitable scheme etc. Sri Subrhamanya Jois, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioners submits that the very act of drawing such cut off date and making a distinction between the two groups is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and therefore the matter wan-ants examination and interference by quashing the scheme. Counter on behalf of respondent-state is that the scheme is a beneficial scheme for the benefit of the teachers who arc. identified as excess teachers in private aided institutions clue to the fact that the student strength in those institutions having come down drastically and there being no need for retaining such number of teachers in the schools any further and while such teachers are being paid salary from out of the aid extended by the State there cannot be any justification to keep paying such salary from the fund or aid without any work available in the institutions employed by them and therefore action was returned to be taken by the respective management under the provisions of Section 98 and 99 of the Karnataka Education Act, but to ameliorate the grievance and difficulties of such teachers the government came up with the scheme as indicated under Annexure-B and while the government is making maximum efforts to rehabilitate such number of teachers as can be accommodated under the scheme, the government cannot accommodate all such teachers who are likely to face the guillotine of retrenchment as a consequence of teachers becoming excess for want of commensurate number of students. It is also submitted that m respect of identified teachers who become excess on or before 15-2-2005 they are alt being provided aid upto 31-5-2007 and thereafter if some of them still remain without being accommodated, the provisions of Section 98 and 99 of the Act will operate against them thereafter and necessary action will be taken in accordance with law under the rules against them. It is also the version of the government that even in respect of those who may become excess after 15-2-2005 the very provision under Sections 98 and 99 will operate. However, in view of the pendency of this writ petition, the matter is not precipitated further and such teachers have not been subjected to treatment under Sections 98 and 99 of the Act. The action that is required to be taken in respect of excess teachers is an action that can be taken by the appointing authority - management of the institution - and the role that the respondent-government plays while extending aid. is to ensure that the teachers who are provided with the aid eve paid better emoluments on par with the pay scales in the government schools, but when the government finds that there is no need for retaining such number of teachers by the management, it is principally the responsibility of the management to take necessary steps and it is only in this regard though the government is not obliged to provide alternative employment or otherwise, it is only as a goodwill gesture to the teachers, the scheme has been formulated and therefore no exception or fault can be taken by such action of the government. On the allegation of discrimination, as the scheme is a beneficial scheme and as a matter of concession shown to certain teachers who have been identified as excess, and those teachers who are not absorbed on. or before 31 -5-2007 will also be subjected to the same subsequent action as under Section 98 and 99 of the Act. The scheme, on the face of it, is a beneficial scheme and being in the nature of a concussion it is rather difficult to accept the argument of discrimination, A concession is not a matter of right and Article 14 arises only in the context of a right and denial of that right. Be that as it may, if the respondents-state is anxious to provide rehabilitation to such teachers and if can workout any other alternative scheme, it is open to the State to do so. In the meanwhile, it may be useful if the respondents place the facts and developments of the manner of the scheme hitheno indicating as to how many teachers have been identified in excess as on 15-2-2005, number of such teachers who have been rehabilitated under the scheme, and have many perhaps may remain even after the cut off date. It is also open to the respondents to examine Such further possibilities and if any such possibilities are available, to have the same placed before the court. Sri Manohar, learned (Government Advocate seeks two weeks time. List this matter after two weeks for further orders. Registry is directed to furnish a copy of this order to the teamed Govt. Advocate.