CHANDRA BHAN YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri J.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

(2.) Petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution assailing advertisement dated 26.11.2011 issued by district Basic Education Officer, Azamgarh inviting applications for appointment of Model Clusters/Instructors in different trades like food and fruit conservation, beauty culture, manufacturing of incense stick etc. Petitioners claim that they were selected and appointed as Model Clusters/Instructors in the Session 2010-11 in different trades and were assigned to various Junior High Schools for imparting professional training to the girls and boys studying in those Junior High Schools run by Board of Basic Education, U.P. These Instructors/Model Clusters are paid Rs. 150/- per day but the Government Order provides that lump sum payment to an Instructors/Model Cluster shall not be more than Rs. 7500/- in the entire session. In fact it says that no Instructors/Model Clusters shall be allowed working days of more than 50 in a Session. Having completed work in the Session 2010-11, petitioners claim to have raised their voice for regular assignment and also for continuance in the next Session, i.e., 2011-12 and a representation to this effect was also given through their association on 20.10.2011 to the Collector, Azamgarh (Annexure-3 to the writ petition). However, instead of considering their aforesaid claim respondents are now proceeding to make fresh selection for new Session 2011-12 and advertisement impugned in the writ petition has been published accordingly. It is this advertisement dated 26.11.2011 issued by District Basic Education Officer which has been assailed in the present writ petition and a mandamus has also been sought commanding the respondents to continue all the petitioners to function as Model Clusters/Instructors pursuant to their earlier selection for the Session 2010-11 so long as the scheme, i.e., the National Programme for Education of Girls at Elementary Level (hereinafter referred to as the "NPEGEL") is continuing.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the scheme is continuing and requirement is perpetual, the respondents cannot be allowed to replace petitioners by new incumbents and if performance of petitioners is satisfactory, they should be allowed to continue and should not be changed by new incumbents. Reliance is placed on Apex Court's decision in Mohd. Abdul Kadir and another Vs. Director General of Police, Assam and others, 2009 6 SCC 611. It is said that any other view would make the action of respondents unreasonable, arbitrary, unfair and irrational. Reliance is placed on Apex Court's decision in M/s Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. Vs. Delhi Administration and others, 2001 AIR(SC) 1447; Union of India and others Vs. Dinesh Engineering Corporation and another, 2001 8 SCC 491; and, Union of India and another Vs. International Trading Co. and another, 2003 5 SCC 437.