DILIPBHAI RASIKBHAI BHATIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned advocate for the respective appellants.

(2.) THIS batch of civil appeals are filed against the judgment in special civil applications given by the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge had decided these special civil applications after the matter came before him on the intervention of the Apex Court. In the earlier round of litigation, the petitioner lost upto the Apex Court, but a statement was made on behalf of the petitioner that Non Formal Education Scheme has continued to operate and the timings of the employment were regular and, while dismissing the SLP, the Apex Court permitted the petitioner to file review application. The stand of the petitioner before the Apex Court was that the appellants were regular and the scheme has continued to operate. The learned single Judge has noted that this scheme has come to an end earlier. National Formal Education Scheme was a scheme floated by the Union of India which was operated by the State Government. Now new scheme has come into operation as EGS and AIE and they are not operative under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) with effect from 1. 4. 2001, the date on which the National Formal Education Scheme came to an end. This scheme envisages separate selection of education volunteers/instructors as mentioned in the hand-book of EGS and AIE schemes, and number of NGOs are involved in the implementation of the new scheme. Therefore, no funding is made available nor any assistance is given by the Central Government. This scheme is purely of the State Government, whereas the earlier scheme of which the appellants have been working was a scheme floated by the Union of India. Thus, according to the learned single Judge, the schemes are different and the learned single Judge has held that SSA Project was not conversion of NFE Scheme and the above project was being implemented through the State Level Autonomous and independent registered society called Gujarat Council of Primary Education. Earlier the employees were appointed on contract basis and their services were hired on short-term basis and, after completion of the contractual period, a fresh contract was made in view of the temporary nature of the project and scheme, and such employees were being paid purely on temporary basis with fixed monthly salary. That scheme having come to an end, their appointments also comes to an end. The learned single Judge has said that since the scheme has not merged into old scheme i. e. NFE has not merged into the new scheme as floated by the State Government, it was not possible to continue these volunteers in service. Further, the learned single Judge has noted that by letter dated 22. 6. 2001 issued by the Ministry of Human Resources Development, it was made clear to the respective authorities to discontinue the staff of earlier AIE and therefore, whatever claim they had by and under the scheme of Human Resources Development cannot be accepted when the Ministry of of Human Resources Development, Government of India itself has asked for discontinuance of their services. Therefore, the case of the petitioners that they should be continued in employment cannot be countenance.

(3.) THE reasonings given by the learned single Judge is perfectly justified. They were contractual employees and no vested right came to their share by any provisions of law.