JAYASREE S. Vs. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners were High School Assistants (Physical Science) in MGTHS, Mukhathala prior to their joining in Governmental Service. Exts.P1 to P5 would reveal the stint of approved service of the first petitioner in the said school spanning from 12.6.2002 to 9.3.2004. In the case of the second petitioner Exts.P6 to P13 would reveal the approved service rendered by her during the period from 16.1.2001 to 9.3.2004 in different spells. After rendering such aided school service the first petitioner joined as a UPSA in Government service and the second petitioner entered in Government service as an Upper Division Clerk in the Revenue Department. The captioned writ petition has been filed mainly seeking the following relief: -

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.

(3.) IN view of the rival contentions the question to be considered is whether the petitioners are entitled to get their temporary appointment effected pursuant to the order in C.M.P. No. 2348/2002 in A.S. No. 120/2002 regularised and also for monetary benefits including arrears of vacation salary. It is the fact that the petitioners and six others namely, Sudha S., Sulekha C., Usha C., Sindhu V., Shiji C.S. and K. Sudhadevi were appointed as teachers temporarily pursuant to the order dated 12.7.2002 in A.S. No. 120/2002 directing the Official Receiver to appoint teachers as such according to their priority in the previous appointment in the school and the said fact is evident from the statements in the counter affidavit and also from Exts.P11 and P12. It is also a fact that subsequently, all of them were ordered to be allowed to continue till the disposal of A.S. No. 120/2002 and it was also ordered to release their vacation salary. The existence of such an order in the case of the petitioners is evident from Ext.P10 judgment. A careful evaluation of the circumstances would reveal that the petitioners continued in service thereafter based on the orders and while so they got appointment in Government service and accordingly, relieved from MGTHS, Mukhathala respectively on 30.1.2004 and 9.3.2004. The others continued based on the earlier orders till the disposal of AS No. 120/2002 as per judgment dated 31.3.2011. Based on the direction in the judgment dated 31.3.2011 and also in W.P.(C) No. 18334/2009 (as is obvious from paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit) the six provisional teachers appointed by the Official Receiver pursuant to the order in CMP. No. 2348/2002 in the said Appeal Suit along with the petitioners were ordered to be treated as regular hands and their seniority was also directed to be reckoned from the date of their entry in service. There cannot be any doubt that in the said circumstances the petitioners could have continued in service in MGTHS Mukhathala on the strength of the aforementioned orders to obtain the benefits as extended to the other temporary appointees in and vide Ext.P12. In the light of the indisputable facts obtained from the pleadings in the writ petition and also from the statements in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent and Exts.P11 and P12 it can only be said that till the date of leaving the aided school service respectively on 30.1.2004 and 9.3.2004 the petitioners and the beneficiaries of Ext.P12 were similarly situated in all respects. In such circumstances, it can be safely taken that they too would have obtained the benefits, as has been extended to the other temporary appointees under Ext.P12 but for their leaving the aided school service. In such circumstances, the question is whether claim of the petitioners for regularisation and the consequential monetary claims including arrears of vacation salary (which were given in the case of the beneficiaries of Ext.P12) till the date on which they left the service of the said school could be granted in the facts and circumstances. In this context, it is relevant to note that the only reason assigned by the first respondent to deny the petitioners such benefits is that they left the service of the school respectively on 30.1.2004 and 9.3.2004. I am of the considered view that it is a case wherein the salutary maxim 'Parium eadem est ratio, idem jus' which means 'of things equal, the reason and the law is the same' should apply lest it would violate the equality doctrine enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The inevitable conclusion is that the petitioners are entitled to get treated as regular hands and to get consequential monetary benefits including arrears of vacation salary respectively till 30.4.2004 & 9.3.2004. Consequently, there will be a direction to the first respondent to issue appropriate orders treating the petitioners as well, as regular hands till 30.4.2004 and 9.3.2004 from the date of entry in service of MGTHS, Mukhathala and to grand them all benefits which were extended to the beneficiaries in Ext.P12 including the arrears of vacation salary. Since they have already left the service of MGTHS, Mukhathala the question of fixation of their seniority in the said school do not arise. This shall be done expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. It is also made clear that the petitioners would also be entitled to get all service benefits flowing from the order treating them as regular hands, in accordance with law.